The Protestant's Dilemma (19 page)

Of course, sometimes Catholics do obtain a civil divorce and then enter Christian marriage with someone else. They’re able to do this because, due to the presence of some obstacle or defect at the time of the first attempted marriage, a valid union was never formed. When petitioned to determine whether such an obstacle actually existed, rendering invalid the attempt at marriage, the Church undertakes a serious and thorough legal investigation called the process of annulment. If this process determines that a true marriage never occurred—that the man and woman never actually became one flesh in God’s eyes—both persons are free to enter into marriage with someone else.

Annulments are not “divorce Catholic-style.” Unlike divorce, which requires a marriage to have existed, annulments require that a marriage
never
existed. The circumstances that could impede a marriage from occurring, though they’re beyond the scope of this book to discuss in detail, are not trivial. Also, marriages are never annulled due to “irreconcilable differences,” infidelity, or any other factor that arose after the wedding.

Our world, so deeply in need of a Christian witness to the sanctity and permanence of marriage, instead sees the rampant divorce and remarriage among Christians as proof that these evils are acceptable, and that God doesn’t seem to help Christians stay married any more than other people. This weakening of marriage has led to the disintegration of the family, which is the fundamental cell of society. Along with contraception, which removed the necessity of children from marriage, it has paved the way for the rise of acceptance of same-sex unions and “marriages.”

It is no coincidence that the Catholic Church has stood like a rock, unmoved and unchanged in its moral teachings against the battering waves of the modern world with its selfish and morally relative agenda. The bishops, priests, and laity of the Catholic Church have not accomplished this feat by their own strength but by the unfailing protection of God’s Spirit.

THE PROTESTANT’S DILEMMA

If Protestantism is true,
then not even the sanctity of human life can be considered non-negotiable Christian teaching. Along with the indissolubility of marriage, it’s not an objective moral truth but a mere starting point for negotiation with the secular culture.

29: THE DISINTEGRATION OF MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM

IF PROTESTANTISM IS TRUE,

There’s nothing wrong with choosing a church based on your tastes and interests rather than God’s truth.

On a recent trip to the grocery store, I saw two bumper stickers for churches: the Powerhouse Church and the Cactus Cowboy Church. I have a friend who goes to a very hip, artsy Protestant church called Mosaic, which denies that it is a “church” in the standard sense. Neither of these churches falls into traditional categories, nor are they affiliated with a standard denomination. The mainline Protestant denominations are shrinking rapidly, leading some to predict a coming collapse of Evangelicalism,
¹²⁵
so it is not surprising to see the rise of such “niche” churches. We are all looking for community, and more than ever Protestants are choosing one-off congregations that most “fit” them and their personal preferences.

Ecclesial Consumerism

Ask a young adult who goes to a denominational church how he would describe himself and you will likely hear, “I am a Christian; I go to this church because they teach soundly from the Bible.” He would not label himself a “Baptist” or a “Methodist.” Denominational loyalty doesn’t bind him as it did his parents, back when families often formed religiously homogenous communities. Irish theologian Alister McGrath talks about this fading denominational loyalty within Protestantism: “Even as late as 1960, most Americans had serious misgivings about worshiping at Protestant denominations other than their own, feeling this compromised their religious identities. Their loyalty was primarily—and in many cases exclusively—to the specific beliefs, structure, and life of a particular denomination.”
¹²⁶

If what really matters is believing in Jesus and following him, not where you go to church, then people will choose a church based on where they feel “fed” and able to contribute their own gifts. Of course a cowboy is going to love it at the Cowboy Church, where there’s a barbecue after every Sunday service and the elder rides a horse.

Just as I have my unique taste in coffee—mint mocha latte, decaf, whip—if I can have a church that fits my exact tastes, that’s where I’m going. If I don’t fit into the categories of Anglican or Churches of Christ or Pentecostal, I can go instead to where I have found a community that relates to my personal journey with Jesus.

This mentality fits into our Western culture’s consumeristic idea that we should have multiple choices for everything. Why should I go to a church that “I don’t get anything out of?” I don’t willingly subject myself to inconvenience and pain in other areas of my life, so why do it on Sundays? I want a church that fits my tastes, plays worship music I like, has people of the same age and demographic as me, provides activities that I find meaningful, and teaches articles of faith and morals that make me feel good about what I already believe and do.

BECAUSE CATHOLICISM IS TRUE,

The Church that Christ established and has guided into all truth can still be found today.

At the heart of Protestantism’s ecclesial consumerism is an assumption that there is no one true, visible Church that we all need to reunite with; instead, all churches are small parts of the invisible Church, each offering something unique. So choosing one over the other is like choosing a different dish at a restaurant.

The Catholic understanding is the opposite. There
is
a visible Church that Christ established, but Protestant communities have broken off in schism from it. Choosing a church is therefore nothing like choosing a kitchen appliance or an espresso, and the focus should never be on what works for “me.” Instead we try to conform ourselves to what God has ordained.

And so our search should not be for the church that fits our personal preferences but for the Church that Christ built and to which he appointed rightful authorities, the Church that he promised to protect from error and lead into all truth, the Church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against.
¹²⁷
Certainly,
within
that Church will be people grouped by different interests and callings—there is legitimate diversity within the unity of the truth (1 Cor. 12:12–27). But on Sundays, we should all kneel united before the cross of Christ, recite the one creed, and offer the same sacrifice. Christ called us to unity (John 17:21), so he must desire it
and
make it possible for all types of people to achieve.

THE PROTESTANT’S DILEMMA

If Protestantism is true,
then no one Church has the fullness of the truth; rather, all churches teach a mixture of true and false doctrine. So it makes sense to find one that agrees on enough of the truth that you deem essential and also that appeals to your tastes and preferences. In addition, as your tastes change and your church feels less relevant, it’s your right to find a different church that meets your needs. In the end, this makes being a follower of Christ more about us than about him.

30: PASTORAL AUTHORITY

IF PROTESTANTISM IS TRUE,

You never know which leaders, if any, have true authority.

I once listened to a series of talks given by an Evangelical pastor, whom I will call Pastor Neil, which focused on equipping men to be faithful and strong disciples of Christ. One important point he made was the idea of jurisdiction, which, in Pastor Neil’s parlance, was equivalent to authority. He rightly pointed out that men, as heads of our families, have authority given to us by God the Father and that we must accept this authority and use it to lead our families in a Christ-like way. In a similar way, he said, rightful Christian authorities should lead those in their churches. That makes sense, too. But how to figure out who exactly
has
that authority is much less clear.

I Have No Authority but Jesus

We all have human authorities in our lives. At home when we were children, our parents were our authorities; at school, our teachers and principals were. In civil society, we have authorities at many levels: city council, mayor, law enforcement officers, legislators. We see that they have authority over us when we break the laws they enact and enforce—because we get a ticket or go to jail! At work, too, we have authorities over us; I have no fewer than six levels of supervisors above me in the authority chain that goes right up to the top of my company.

But what about in the Christian faith? Ah, here it is different, is it not? Here, surely, we have “no authority over us except Jesus Christ,” which is exactly what many Protestants say when it comes to their beliefs and their church. According to Protestant theology, Jesus is the only infallible authority, so it is only to him that a Christian can give his unqualified allegiance.

Yet we know that in the Bible God also revealed offices of Christian leadership: elders, presbyters, and deacons. And so within Protestantism a tension exists between God’s ultimate authority and the subordinate authority held by the human beings Scripture says should be in charge of local churches. When a Protestant believes there’s a conflict between what his elders are telling him and what he understands God’s will to be, he must follow the latter—even if it means breaking off and starting his own church. Does an elder still retain authority if he falls into error? Each Protestant answers that question for himself, judging his leaders based on his own interpretation of what God’s authority says in Scripture.

The consequence of this is clear: If a leader’s authority is only as good as his followers’ judgment of his leadership, then he never had true authority to begin with. Once again, private interpretation reigns supreme.

BECAUSE CATHOLICISM IS TRUE,

God guides the rightful authority of his Church, so submitting to its authorities is submitting to God.

Here’s what Pastor Neil had to say about authority: “Pride will destroy a jurisdiction. Don’t trust Mohammed or Buddha: Who gave them jurisdiction? Why should I listen to one of them? They don’t have jurisdiction. Where men do not submit to their elders, there will be destruction and disorder in the church. If a man won’t listen to the elders, to the church, if he won’t submit to their jurisdiction, Paul says, ‘I will deliver such a one to Satan’ and his jurisdiction [1 Cor. 5:4–5].” Pastor Neil also mentions that Peter told Christians to submit to the government, superiors in the work sphere, human institutions, and authorities for the Lord’s sake.

What if we were to apply Pastor Neil’s ideas to the beginnings of Protestantism? Martin Luther and the other leaders of the Reformation did not submit to their elders, the bishops of Christ’s Church, and that did indeed lead to “destruction and disorder.” It led to schism upon schism, to a thousand splinterings that countermanded Christ’s command, and Paul’s, that there be no divisions among Christians.

“If a man won’t listen to the elders, to the church, if he won’t submit to their jurisdiction, Paul says, ‘I will deliver such a one to Satan’ and his jurisdiction.” How many times has this happened in Christ’s Church through history? The Manichees, the Monophysites, the Docetists, the Arians, and many other men who chose to reject the elders of Christ’s Church and their authority were delivered to Satan and his authority. So why exactly did it become okay for some sixteenth-century European Christians to throw off the yoke of authority of Christ’s Church and follow their own ideas of what is true? Had Paul’s words ceased to apply?

Now, Pastor Neil seemed to mean “church” in the smallest sense possible: the group of people who meet at someone’s home, who rent space at the local school on Sundays, or maybe are lucky enough to have their own building. The “elders” of such church are presumably whoever founded it and became pastor, and perhaps those he chose to be his assistants. But without the one, apostolic, and universal Church that Christ established, following the jurisdiction of such “elders” makes little sense. No surprise, then, that so often a person who disagrees with the elders just leaves and goes to the church down the street, or founds his own church in which he is the elder. We see how ridiculous these scriptural verses on unity become if Christ has no visible, authoritative Church but rather thousands of little churches—with thousands of elders all claiming rightful authority.

THE PROTESTANT’S DILEMMA

If Protestantism is true,
then if a Christian needs spiritual authority in his life—whether to stave off the devil, fight sin, or make a moral ruling—he has to wade through myriad differing options. Any “elder” of any church where he feels “at home” might do. But how would he know that this elder and this church were teaching the truth of God?