1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
|
On unity, Cyprian, lapsed, penance, persecution, and Chesterton
###############################################################
:date: 2016-03-21T18:05:01
:category: faith
:tags: theology, Catholics, blogcomment, ecumenism, forgiveness, persecution
(linked on A History of Christian Theology `Facebook page`_)
I have just finished backlistening to whole podcast `A History of
Christian Theology`_ and I really liked it. However, the last
episode_ on the Saint Cyprian hit couple of pet peeves of mine, so
I feel I really need to respond.
Yes, I know, G. K. Chesterton is not “a serious theologian”,
but I have to admit some of his insights made bigger impact on my
religious life than most serious theologians. So, one example for
many is a short story about the Father Brown “`The chief
mourner of Marne`_”, where the spectators first accuse Father
Brown of cruelty for pushing somebody into desperation for the
sin he committed, and later (when truly ugly character of the
crime is revealed) they completely reject him. Father Brown then
explains they were not merciful on the criminal out of their
mercy but because they did not consider his behavior to be really
bad. However, now when they do consider his behavior bad, they
have no mercy for him. The point is that the true mercy starts
with accepting the sin. Forgive me if I indulge myself with too
long quotation from the story:
“[…] that is the real difference between human charity
and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not
altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness
to- day; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for
every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the
sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive
criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes,
but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional
duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You
forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.”
“But, hang it all,” cried Mallow, “you don't expect us
to be able to pardon a vile thing like this?”
“No,” said the priest; “but we have to be able to
pardon it.”
He stood up abruptly and looked round at them.
“We have to touch such men, not with a bargepole, but with
a benediction,” he said. “We have to say the word that
will save them from hell. We alone are left to deliver them
from despair when your human charity deserts them. Go on your
own primrose path pardoning all your favourite vices and
being generous to your fashionable crimes; and leave us in
the darkness, vampires of the night, to console those who
really need consolation; who do things really indefensible,
things that neither the world nor they themselves can defend;
and none but a priest will pardon. Leave us with the men who
commit the mean and revolting and real crimes; mean as St.
Peter when the cock crew, and yet the dawn came.”
I am afraid most American Protestants have no personal experience
with the true old fashioned betrayal, with Christians denying
their Christ. The worst which could happen in America today for a
Christian revealing himself is that he will be perhaps somewhere
considered a fool, and even that most people will not dare to
reveal to his face out of politeness. I was born 1971 in then
socialist Czechoslovakia. No, I haven’t been a Christian until
the fall of the Communism in 1989 (in 1991, to be exact), but I
remember clearly the situation when the betrayal was obviously
the most rational solution and faithfulness to principles
hopelessly idealistic. What I want to say is that betrayal in
persecution is a big deal, and it should not be treated lightly.
I would certainly not agree with Novatianists (or Donatists),
because every personal history is specific and needs to be
considered in its own context, and certainly everybody should
have some path back to the full membership, but that path should
not necessarily be easy. And yes, insufficient dealing with
failures of Christians under the Communism is probably one of the
roots of the unfortunate state of the Central and East European
Church right now.
There was another art work which I was thinking about when
listening to the podcast. Talking about the socialist
Czechoslovakia, one of the most unexpected movies I was able to
see in the cinemas there was “`The Mission`_”. I still cannot
understand how it was possible that our censors let this
obviously religious movie to be permitted to run in our cinemas
(perhaps for displaying terrible fate of poor Indians?) and I
still consider it to be one of the best movies I have ever seen.
Particularly for this episode of podcast I was thinking about the
person of Rodrigo Mendoza. Former mercenary and slave catcher,
kills out of jealousy his younger brother, and is completely
crippled by the guilt of it. Legally he is innocent (it was a
duel), but he ends half-crazy as a prisoner in a monastery. The
main person of the movie, Father Gabriel, leads him to repentance
and to Christ, but (with his approval) gives him horrendously
heavy penance. I remember when I viewed the movie again, then
already as a young passionate freshly converted Protestant, I was
appalled by the penance and was thinking how the God’s mercy is
and must be free-only. I believe, I was wrong. Of course, God’s
forgiveness is always free and only “to the one who does not
work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly” is their faith
credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5 NIV). However, it is now
obvious to me that for psychological reasons penance could be
really helpful (not mentioning James 5:16 which seems to be
constantly ignored by most sola Scriptura Protestants).
The last thought is on denominations. Obviously I do not have a good solution, but just let me note that one of the biggest problems of ecumenism is IMHO that there is also hopelessly little on the defining ideal solution. I guess not many Christians (aside from the fringe extremists of particular denominations and Eastern Orthodox) expect the solution would be that everybody discarded their own denomination and finally join the one truly holy denomination (of whatever kind). So, what remains? “You’ll worship the Virgin Mary a bit and we give up the infallibility of pope”? Or what? It seems to me that the only way how to get ahead is to accept a plurality of denominations. First of all we can start with an observation that there was not an unified Church (either organizationally or ideologically) since 1. Corinthians 1:22. What followed since then (Jewish, Greek, Irish, Roman etc. traditions, Church of the East all the way to `the Nestorian Stele`_) seems to me like impossible to be described as an organizationally or ideologically unified body by any means. Perhaps if we accept plurality and idea that there are some things which we just has not find an agreement yet (e.g., padeobaptism), we may start to make some progress. And no, I don’t like those 300 Baptist denominations either, or perhaps even `45,000`_ denominations in total. The ideal number is quite certainly lower than that, but I do not think it is one.
.. _`Facebook page`:
https://www.facebook.com/ahistoryofchristiantheology/
.. _`A History of Christian Theology`:
http://ahistoryofchristiantheology.com/
.. _episode:
http://ahistoryofchristiantheology.podomatic.com/entry/2016-03-14T12_03_19-07_00
.. _`The chief mourner of Marne`:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201041h.html#story9
.. _`The Mission`:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_%281986_film%29
.. _`the Nestorian Stele`:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_Stele
.. _`45,000`:
http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/research/documents/1IBMR2015.pdf
|
