Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic

 

Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}

One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study."  As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God.  That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement.  If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or church.  With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.

When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}.  After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.

Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs?  If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?

The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}

In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p. 2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion” (ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.

My comment: Is that not a serious charge!  That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism!  Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations.  Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with.  But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil.  Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.

For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).

So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?

Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.

My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.

"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show that those who malign the investigation and examination of traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8) In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman, ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority.  And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who would argue that way.

My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed.  It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world.  Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God.  Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura.  Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize or malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.

Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life. If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or Catholicism or anything else.

My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all.  Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice?  Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.

In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly (mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).

My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong.  He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations.  That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.

Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.  

"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura), minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.

My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing.  It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology.  In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be?  For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith.  The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.

When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?  

In denigrating the five solas, he both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas as his whipping boy.

For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the solas. 

My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)?  If you we a pastor, and learned about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?  

While the "nones" are growing, so are those who say they are "born again".

In a recent article {More Non-Evangelicals Are Calling Themselves Born Again A growing share of mainline Protestants and Catholics have taken on the once-distinctive label over the past three decades. by Ryan Burge}, Christianity Today makes note of an interesting, and somewhat unexpected given the doom & gloom mood that seems fairly common concerning Christianity in America, trend of steady growth, across all Christian segments, of those who answer affirmative to this question in the General Social Survey (GSS): “Would you say you have been ‘born again’ or have had a ‘born again’ experience—that is, a turning point in your life when you committed yourself to Christ?”  In other words, while much attention (rightfully) has been paid to the steady rise of those who claim "none" as their religious affiliation, especially among younger Americans, at the same time a growing percentage of Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics, across racial lines, are self-identifying as being people who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ.  The religious landscape in America is certainly changing, but in more than one direction.

One issue with Burge's reporting before pondering the larger question of why and what it might mean for the future: "The surprise comes with mainline Protestants, who have gone from 28 percent identifying as born again to 40 percent. And the portion of born-again Catholics has doubled (from 14% to 28%). Those increases are especially striking because neither tradition teaches that a born-again conversion is a necessary component of their faith."  This is over-simplification at best, misleading (in an insulting way) at worst.  Not every Christian community uses the same words and phrases in the same way.  If you ask a Catholic, "Are you born again?"  The answer is more likely to be 'no' than if you asked that same Catholic, "Have you made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ?"  Does that mean that the Catholic Church doesn't teach the necessity of individuals making a commitment to Jesus Christ?  Hardly they require it before any person can fully participate in the community, how else does one explain the milestones a young Catholic (or adult convert) goes through heading toward confirmation and first communion?  Similar questions of phraseology could be applied to other non-evangelical Protestant denominations.  The original survey question, first asked in 1988, was written from an Evangelical Protestant perspective, and likely confused many of the initial respondents from other Christian perspectives.  Over the years, as the Culture Wars continued to rage, and the phrase "born again" became more a part of the cultural vernacular, it would not be surprising to see the number of those who answer the survey with a 'yes' increase as a result.  Is that what's going on here or are deeper issues at work?

"Over the years, being born again may have evolved from being seen as a distinctive for evangelical Protestantism to a way to suggest that they are particularly active in their faith. Across Christian traditions, the more often a person attends church, the more likely they are to say they have had a born-again experience, regardless of their affiliation."  This is a more likely explanation than the previous statement implying that Mainline Protestants and Catholics just don't teach the need for conversion.


These charts are the heart of the story, and tell the most important tale.
Some observations on the chart relating church attendance to self-identification as being "born again": (1) How is it that 50% of those who call themselves evangelicals and African-American Protestants, who NEVER go to church, still think that they're 'born again'?  That's an absurdly high number or people who evidently have no real understanding of what is required of a disciple of Jesus Christ, because being a part of the body of Christ, serving the church and being under the tutelage of the Word of God isn't apparently a priority to that 50% who still identify themselves as being both 'born again' and belonging to one of those two groups without actually going to church.  For Catholics and Mainline Protestants the numbers are less than 20% among those who never go to church, still higher than we should be comfortable with, but not the over-inflated 50%. (2) Going to church matters!  I'm of course biased on this view, being an ordained minister called to lead a church, but that is what the Scriptures proclaim, and what 2,000 years of Church history attest, so I don't feel like I'm on shaky ground here in asserting the necessity of an individual Christian's (or 'Christian' as the case may be for those not-yet converted) connection to a local church.  (3) Going to church more matters more than going to church less.  That's a confusing sentence, but the charts seems fairly clear: those who go to church more regularly are more likely to have claimed to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ than those who go to church only infrequently.  Go to church!  No, Christmas and Easter are not sufficient.  {Please come then if you don't go otherwise to hear about the Advent of Christ and then about his death and resurrection, those are key parts of God's redemptive story (all pastors are encouraged to see visitors at the holidays, they just want to see them more than that).}



First off, I have no love for the use of the term 'literal' when talking about the Bible; few words are more abused and less well understood.  Also, why was this question written to make a dichotomy between 'inspired' and 'literal'?  How can Scripture be the inspired but not 'literal' (ouch, it pains me to use it even with 'quotes') words of God? {See my 3 part discourse on the Bible to learn more about revelation, inspiration, interpretation, etc. What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible}  Aside from the structural issues with the way this question was written, the data here is also interesting.  The more often people attend church, the more likely they are to honor the authority of God's Word (whether calling it 'inspired' or 'literal') and the less likely they are to consider it to be simply 'written by men'.  Not surprisingly, those who know more about God's Word, who hear it preached to them more regularly, and who place themselves under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, respond by embracing it.  Those who avoid the fellowship of God's people, who don't prioritize worship of God, tend to view God's Word with less reverence.  None of this is surprising to anyone working in vocational ministry.  Not surprising at all.
"It would appear that the term “born again” has evolved somewhat among the American public. What used to be seen as a touchstone experience for many evangelicals who went forward at a revival, youth camp, or especially moving Sunday worship service, now seems to mean something more. In essence, the word seems to have been adopted by people of other faith traditions as a way to indicate that they are a devout believer. The data suggests that individuals take the term to mean that faith plays an important role in their life and their religious activity serves more than a social purpose."  To quote my former college professor at Cornerstone University, Prof. Andy Smith: "Word usage determines word meaning."  The term 'born again' has evolved.  What was once a technical term that baffled many of the survey takers in the 1980's has now become a more general term that more broadly reflects its original biblical meaning: devout believer.  It doesn't take a recitation of a 'sinner's prayer' to become a Christian, it takes a changed heart, an act of faith, that comes from the calling of the Holy Spirit and results in a life whose direction has changed and results in the ongoing display of the Fruit of the Spirit.  It is a good thing if people in the Church are more focused on having one's life direction changed than on having a single experience.
What then does all of this mean?  The short version is this: The decline of the 'Christian American' culture is asking casual people to make a choice.  It isn't as easy as it used to be to float along in a Christian inspired river without making your own commitment.  When the change required of conversion becomes more stark, and the counter-cultural cost of discipleship becomes more evident, those who never go to church, but consider themselves to be 'Christians', shrink, while those who both openly reject Christianity/The Church, and those who openly embrace it, gain numbers.  As these trends continue, the commonalities between committed members of Christian communities will only grow more clear, the reasons for cooperative ministry more compelling, and if God is gracious to us, the percentage of those in some way connected to the Church willing to make a personal commitment (and follow through by being a part of the local church) will grow.

Clearing up misconceptions between Catholics and Protestants

One of the things which makes ecumenical conversations and cooperative efforts more difficult is the abundance of misinformation that Catholics have about Protestants and Protestants have about Catholics.  Some of these misunderstandings are inevitable, the product of 500 years of division, partisans on both sides that feed on attacking straw men, and a general lack of first-hand knowledge.  The clearing up of these misconceptions is thus an ongoing project among Christians, one that won't end anytime soon.  With that being said, I'd like to respond to an article written by Father Dwight Longenecker in the National Catholic Register on April 9th.  As such, I've copied his entire article below, and will intersperse my own thoughts in brackets with a red font.

Are Catholics Born-Again Christians?

“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” (John 3:3)

Fr. Dwight Longenecker

My godly Evangelical mother used to “witness” when we were out shopping. She’d ask the storekeeper, “Have you been born again?” If the conversation got going she’d relate the story of the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus in the third chapter of John’s gospel. I don’t know if she ever succeeded in making a convert, but she succeeded in embarrassing me somewhat. I’m now embarrassed that I was embarrassed and, in hindsight, admire her courage, faith and zeal.

The question remains, however, “Just what is a ‘born-again Christian'”? Most Evangelicals would say that being ‘born again’ or ‘getting saved’ consists of a personal conversion experience. In some way the individual has a prodigal son moment and ‘comes to himself.’ He repents of his sin and turns to Jesus Christ for salvation. He does this by saying ‘the sinner’s prayer’ which is very simply, “Lord Jesus, I’m sorry for my sins and I want to accept your gift of forgiveness and salvation. Come into my life and make me your disciple forever.” [The overemphasis on 'the sinner's prayer' is a legitimate issue within Evangelical circles, but any such prayer is simply an attempt to put into practice Paul's words in Romans 10:9-10, "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."  The exact words themselves are of course not the point, it is the combination of belief and profession of faith that is at the heart of any version of a prayer of repentance which acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus, and one's own need for forgiveness though him.]

That’s all well and good I suppose, and if this is all that is required to be “born again” then every Catholic is a “born-again Christian” because at every Mass we confess our sins and accept Jesus. At every baptism we confess our sins and accept Jesus. At every celebration of the sacrament of confession we confess our sins and accept the forgiveness of Jesus.

The problem between Evangelicals and Catholics does not come with this core definition and basic experience. The difficulty comes in what comes next. Essentially the Evangelical (and I know I’m making generalizations and that there is a spectrum of theological opinions within Evangelicalism) doesn’t think there is anything next — at least not anything that is necessary. Once the person says the sinner’s prayer he’s got his ticket to heaven, and nothing else is required. This is a consequence of the Evangelical Protestant’s loathing of anything that smacks of “salvation by works.” He wants salvation to have no strings attached. Nothing else is necessary — not even the sacrament of baptism. [Here is where we need to clear some things up: Yes, there are some Evangelicals who have a 'catch and release' mentality that focuses far too much on the initial stage of conversion and far too little on the production of Fruit of the Spirit which is the necessary hallmark of authentic faith which has taken root.  By and large, however, most Evangelicals, and most Protestants, are well aware that "faith without works is dead", and that if spiritual maturity and discipleship are not forthcoming after any 'conversion experience' {whatever form it takes} then the whole basis of a supposed conversion is called into question, necessitating a return to 'square one' as it were, starting once again from a confession of Christ and a commitment to repentance.  It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who labeled the tendency toward a discipleship-free faith that cost its adherents nothing as "cheap grace", an invalid version of Christianity devoid of its heart.  The crux of the difference of understanding between Catholics and Protestants here seems to be on the definition of the word 'necessary'.  Protestants would point to the thief on the cross as an example of one for whom nothing more than a confession of faith was possible, certainly he had no opportunity for baptism or any other demonstration of his faith, but at the same time, most Protestants (and Evangelicals) would understand that in the long-run it is expected that every true believer would repeatedly and continually demonstrate acts of obedience and service as faithful disciples of Jesus indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  I will readily admit that trying to avoid "sounding Catholic", i.e. anything that feels or sounds like 'salvation by works' is certainly a problem for Protestants, although the opposite version is a hang-up for many Catholics as well, as both groups try to avoid sounding/acting like their historic rivals in ways that warp us both.]

The Catholic, on the other hand, quotes the New Testament and says, “Repent and be baptized.” The simple action of faith has to be combined with the sacrament of baptism. Evangelicals should understand that we do not regard baptism (or any of the sacraments) as something we do as some kind of good work. Instead, baptism is God’s action toward us. It is a completely unmerited outflowing of God’s grace toward us. This is why we emphasize baptism as the “born again” experience rather than the “sinner’s prayer,” which definitely is something a person does. [The emphasis by Father Longenecker is welcome here, for most Protestants do think that Catholics consider the sacraments to be a form of good works, not an act of God's grace, but by the same token, he's putting the shoe on the other foot where it doesn't fit either, for Protestants do not consider repentance {in the form of a 'sinner's prayer' or anything else} to be a work done by the Lost sinner, but rather an act of God's grace who calls the lost to repentance and makes repentance possible.  This is of course delving into the time-honored debate between Calvinists and Arminians, between God's sovereignty and man's freewill; not an easy puzzle to solve, and in my opinion not one that God intended us to solve.]

This is the irony from our point of view: Evangelicals say we believe in a salvation by works because we insist on sacraments. Yet our true belief is that the sacraments are the actions of Christ through his Church pouring out his grace on us unmerited sinners. He sends out the  invitations. He sets the table for the feast. He cooks the meal and serves at table. All we do is turn up. The irony is deepened because Evangelicals claim not to have a religion based on works, but they ask their converts to say the sinner’s prayer, which is a kind of work of salvation. [Here is where he swerved away from a helpful explanation and into a swipe at the opposition, unfortunately.  Let's be honest, however we understand the confluence of God's grace and man's responsibility, we all agree that without God's grace we'd be screwed, and we all agree that those who repent are not robots, they are certainly 'doing something', something prompted by God's grace, enabled by his Spirit, but it remains something that we must still do as evidence of our salvation {Not to BE saved, but to show that we have already BEEN saved, the emphasis must remain on the finished work of Jesus and the ongoing Grace of God}.  Both Protestants and Catholics are explaining what man has to do to be saved BY God somewhat differently, but an honest evaluation would conclude that we both believe that if God doesn't do what only God can do, anything we try to do will be pointless.]

Furthermore, for the Catholic, the action of faith is a continuing action. All our ‘good works’ are ‘works of faith.’ They are filled with faith and are faith in action. Instead of a once-and-done decision of ‘getting saved,’ Catholics know that faith is a commitment and continuance in a newly graced way of life. Being born again is all well and good, but if that’s all there is, we’re concerned at the alarming rate of infant mortality. [As I said before, only the worst examples of Evangelicals preach that salvation is a 'once-and-done' experience without the expectation of resulting righteous deeds, so don't make that a straw man to oppose any more than the Catholics who misunderstand the sacraments as good works instead of God's grace.]

Lest any Evangelicals think I’m throwing stones, I’m alarmed at the high rate of spiritual infant mortality amongst the Catholics as well as among the Evangelicals. A Baptist pastor friend of mine once asked me how many of the children I baptized grew up to be active and committed church members. I guessed maybe one in ten. He smiled and said he had about the same drop-off rate among adult converts whom he baptized. [Anecdotal evidence is only worth so much, but I find a 1/10 ongoing commitment rate for any Baptist church to be scandalous, we are talking about adults (or at least teens) making a choice in a setting that involves ongoing support.  If what we're doing as a Church, Catholic or Protestant, only 'works out' 1 time in 10, we'd better be taking a hard look at our own actions, for God's grace is certainly not 10% effective.]

I mentioned that Evangelicals don’t want there to be any sniff of salvation by works. However, it would be wrong to suppose that they don’t care about spiritual maturity, keeping the converts committed and living the life of faith. They do, and they work hard to make sure the faith sticks. What Evangelicals need to realize is that Catholics are also “born-again Christians.” We’ve repented and accepted Jesus. It’s just that we’ve done so in a different context and with some different basic assumptions — ones that, if you stopped to understand them, actually complement and complete what you already believe. [There is a growing consensus among Evangelicals, and Protestants in general, that a committed/active Catholic is not a part of the mission field anymore than a committed/active part of a different Protestant denomination.  There will always be those on both sides who view anyone who isn't exactly like them in belief/practice as a "heretic" to be condemned, but that attitude is decreasing, as it should.  I have to say, it is refreshing to hear a Catholic use the phrase, "born again", even though I had concluded from the Scriptures, and from my own experience with Catholics, that same thing nearly twenty years ago, it is still rare to hear a Catholic use "our" lingo, which of course is the whole point, we misunderstand each other, too often, but hopefully less in the future.]

Thus ends me thoughts on the article, I found it to be refreshing, but still suffering somewhat from the same tendency toward misunderstanding and misconception that Father Longenecker is trying to correct coming from Evangelicals, thus the task remains before us of correcting our own misconceptions of each other as we seek to build the unity of the Church of Christ.

Are Catholics Born-Again Christians? by Father Longenecker

The Reformation - How We Got Here

            Unity has always been a concept that it was easier for the Church to proclaim than to actualize.  When the Apostle John wrote his first epistle, as the first generation of Christianity came to a close and the second non-eyewitness generation came to the fore, it was already necessary for him to counter the heretical claims of the Gnostics by reaffirming the humanity of Jesus, both before and after the resurrection, as the one, “we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.”  Three centuries later, the Arians would put forth the heresy that Jesus was less than God, the Church, now the official religion of Rome after remarkable growth from humble beginnings, responded under the leadership of men like Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, ultimately leading to the councils of Nicea and Calcedon where the theology of the person of Christ; handed down from the Apostles, was codified.  From that point forward, only fringe groups would challenge the humanity and deity of Christ, but even with theological unity regarding Jesus, division was still coming, developing along cultural lines as the Latin West drifted away from the Greek East.  The Emperor Diocletian had already administratively split the Roman Empire in half in A.D. 284, after the fall of the empire in the West in the 5^th century, the Latin Western Church and the Easter Greek Church grew more and more estranged.

          The Protestant Reformation, which began 500 years ago on October 31^st, 1517, was not the first major division within the Church, that occurred formally in A.D. 1054, and is known as the Great Schism.  In 1054, the functional East-West divide was made formal when the legate of Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (Keroularios), who in return excommunicated the representative of the Pope.  There were theological and cultural issues that divided the two sides, but the proximate cause of the split was a dispute over power; Leo IX was seeking to assert universal papal authority, the bishops of the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular, refused to accept that claim.

          While the Eastern and Western Churches went their own way, struggling to make a unified response to the rise of Islam and deepening their animosity when the army of the 4^th Crusade turned under Venetian prompting from Jerusalem to sack Constantinople, new issues of theology and politics developed in the West that would lead toward the spirit of reform which Martin Luther inherited.  The West had never been politically unified after the fall of Rome.  In the East, the Emperor of Constantinople held authority over the Patriarch, but in the West the authority of the bishop of Rome had been challenged by Charlemagne and his successors, the Holy Roman Emperors.  Dynastic feuds kept Christian vs. Christian warfare in the West at endemic levels as families vied for power, and the various kings claimed the right to choose their own bishops, typically choosing a family relative regardless of qualifications, as an extension of those power struggles.  On multiple occasions, the right to install a bishop was asserted against the claims of kings, by a Pope, leading to episodes like the excommunication of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV in the 11^th century, who in response led his army over the Alps to besiege Rome, seeking to depose Gregory VII and replace him with a Pope who would do his bidding.

          The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 caused a flood of Greek speaking refugees to head west, sparking a renewed interest in the original Greek of the New Testament.  The Dutch priest, Desiderius Erasmus published his Greek New Testament in 1516, spurring on those who desired the Scriptures in the vernacular, for only the educated few could read Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.  In the 16^th century, ideas spread much more rapidly than in the past thanks to the invention of a workable printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1455; by 1500, 10 million books had been printed in Europe.

          Add to this mix of political turmoil and warfare, and ongoing struggles for power between kings and popes, a series of would-be reformers like the Englishmen John Wycliffe and the Czech Jan Hus.  Reforms did occur within the Church, but the pressure was building for more substantial changes, and that pressure burst forth when a young German priest named Martin Luther issued a call for debate concerning issues that troubled him regarding salvation theology.  Luther had been inspired by his readings of Saint Augustine, as well as Erasmus’ Greek edition at Romans 1:17 where the Vulgate’s Latin read “Justitia”, but the Greek read “dikaios”, that is righteousness rather than justice.  This translational nuance spoke to Martin Luther, leading him to issue his challenge by posting his 95 objections on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg on October 31^st, 1517.

          At this point, Martin Luther was no revolutionary in intent or spirit, merely a reformer, like many within the Western Church.  One hundred years prior, Jan Hus had been promised safe conduct to discuss his proposed reforms, by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund himself, but had been burned at the stake anyway as a heretic.  Knowing this, Martin Luther still came to Worms to meet with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X’s representative, Johann Eck.  Asked by Eck to recant his writings, Luther refused saying, “Unless I am convinced by testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.  I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against my conscience.  May God help me.  Amen.”

          The tribunal then issued the Edict of Worms, declaring Martin Luther to be a heretic and outlaw and excommunicating him.  Luther would have ended like Jan Hus, but several German princes, opposed to Charles V and seeking to curb his authority over them, sheltered Martin Luther, allowing him time to translate the Bible into German, and time for the spark which he had inadvertently lit, to fan into flame and turn from reform to Reformation, leading quickly toward conflict and war as Luther’s ideas spread throughout northern Europe, dividing the Western Church along roughly north-south lines. 

          How did we get here, how did the Church become divided, east-west, and then 500 years later, north-south too?  Theology was a necessary part of it, interpretation and application of Scripture being a task that often leads to disagreement, even among otherwise like-minded people.  Cultural and linguistic differences were also a part, when the fault lines did occur, there was a reason why they split so neatly where differences already existed.  But in the end, the one avoidable factor, the one factor that should have been absent within the Church, was the pursuit of power.  Fallible people lead the Church, they always have, and they are not immune to the siren’s call of power.  On all sides men made choices tainted by their own greed for power, and in the end, it was the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ which paid the price.

          Let us, then, recognize our theological and cultural differences, welcoming honest and respectful study, dialogue, and debate as we together attempt to be what the bride of Christ ought to be, but let us fully reject as folly unbecoming of servants in the kingdom of God, the desire for power which led our ancestors in the faith toward division, and ultimately toward violence and war amongst themselves; for regardless of what they did, and what we here do today, “God’s truth abideth still: His kingdom is forever.”

What is your authority? A historical parallel to the Protestant - Catholic/Orthodox divide

I love the way teaching my two Bible studies each week sometimes causes new ideas or connections to pop into my head in the middle of trying to explain a particular text of Scripture.  That phenomenon happened today allowing me to see for the first time what I think is a useful analogy for understanding the divide between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Christians over the issue of authority.

In the first century, Jesus confronted two of the groups of religious leaders within Judaism who had radically different approaches to the way in which they defined authority: The Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees believed in the authority of the written text of Scripture alone (minus any oral tradition) and preferred to focus upon the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) within the Tanakh (the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The Pharisees, by contrast, accepted the authority of the Tanakh and also that of the Talmud and Midrash (the many generations worth of rabbinic commentary upon, and interpretation of, the Tanakh).

Is the parallel obvious yet?  Protestantism was founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, "Faith alone" and "Grace alone"), that is the idea that Christian theology must rest solely upon the Scriptures themselves.  The Catholic and Orthodox traditions accept the authority of Scripture, but in conjunction with the teachings developed over time by the Church (through the various councils, synods, etc.)

Is it any wonder that Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox Christians have a hard time finding agreement upon a host of issues?  If the authority to which we must appeal is not the same, how can the answers derived from it be consistent?

That we have a different viewpoint of authority is no new observation, Martin Luther himself realized five hundred years ago that he was rejecting the authority of the Church in favor of that of Scripture alone.  I'm sure somebody has previously noticed the parallel between the Sadducees/Protestants and Pharisees/Catholic/Orthodox in the realm of authority, but the connection was new to my brain today, so I thought I'd share it.

Just as a reminder, Jesus had plenty of criticism for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, something to keep in mind when we're tempted to climb up onto a high horse.  Both groups appealed to a different authority, and both were wrong in their conclusions/attitudes, both were in need of reform to reclaim the heart which God requires of his people.

Can we get past the past?

I was working on my sermon for this week, from Acts 10:1-29, where God is in the process of convincing Peter that Gentiles deserve to hear the Gospel too.  Peter, and the rest of the Jewish-Christians of the Early Church, had a blind spot in their thinking that made Jesus' prediction that the Gospel must go to the ends of the earth hard to digest.  These sincere believers were victims, some through their own prejudices, some through simply living in an era where this was the prevailing thought, of the inability to see that God was planning on massively expanding his outreach effort.  God was ready to move forward, his people needed to be shown the Truth so that they would follow.
Earlier in the day I was taking a look at the extra verses in Daniel that are part of the Bible of Catholics and Orthodox, but not Protestant, Christians.  This split goes all the way back to Martin Luther and is now so caught up in our theological differences (especially over Purgatory) that it seems likely that Protestants will never see the value of the Apocrypha with clear eyes.  Are these writings on par with CS Lewis, useful but not Scripture, or are they ancient writing from Godly men that were considered part of Scripture for centuries that we've thrown out for the wrong reasons?  How can a Protestant hope to answer that question without getting mired in the theology that the Catholic Church has built upon these texts?  In case you're wondering, the Catholic Church has the same, "we do this because the Protestant do that" problem as we do, just in reverse.  I don't have any problem seeing us all as part of the family of God, I've known enough siblings who act this way.
The same sort of observation could be made in many of the translation issues, cultural issues, and theological issues that often are so intertwined with our own thoughts and preferences that we have our minds made up long before we weigh the evidence, or we only weigh the evidence that conforms with what we're hoping for.  Do we all do this, is it just the guys in the church across the street, or is that a problem here too?
In the end, are we any different than Peter?  We may look back at silly ol' Peter and thank God that we're not like him, we don't have blinders on, but are we just kidding ourselves?  What message is God trying to get through to us, what plan is he itching to set in motion, if only we would hear him and obey?