|
|
|
News and Ideas from around the Anglican World |
|
____________________________________________________________________________
November 2005
Romeward: not an option As tempting as it might be for disheartened Anglicans at times like this to look to the doctrinal stability of Rome - are there still important theological problems there to warrent caution?
Paul Zahl
Let’s look at this a minute. Benedict is great. We all like what he says about most doctrines, and probably all moral teachings, of the Christian faith. A couple of thousand orthodox Episcopalians, who were attending an emergency conference in Dallas right after an openly gay bishop was approved by our denomination, will never forget the moment when we were called suddenly back into the hall, to hear a telegram read out from Cardinal Ratzinger! He wrote to us, telling us of the Vatican’s sympathy with us, and its solicitude for us in our church suffering. It was an amazing moment!
So yes, we really do like Benedict XVI.
We also really like his implied confrontation with secular Europe. I sometimes just want to throw up my hands at the Europeans, and the English, too, for their rationalist indifference, which has resulted in a debased youth culture, a terminally low birth rate, and an unprincipled capitulation to the Islamic minority which will soon be a majority if present trends continue. It is this unblinking secularism and even anti-Christianity of the region, which strikes me as a massive case of shooting themselves in the foot.
So there is a lot to appreciate in the new pope’s collision course with the severe agnosticism of the land mass that surrounds him. This is all to the good.
But it is not enough to make me wish to swim the Tiber! Many of my orthodox colleagues through the Anglican Communion are going over to Rome these days. Even if they are married clergy, if they are anywhere near to retirement - especially, believe it or not, if they are bishops - the pull of Rome is strong. It is like the tractor beam in Star Wars. Rome looks so good, for conservative Christian people, that it becomes so good. It has a powerful pull. For several of my colleagues, Benedict’s election was the final “double plus good” (George Orwell), sealing the deal on the finality and authority of Rome’s position. My friends have “poped.”
I do not blame them. But I cannot agree with them.
The big problem with Roman Catholicism is the old and enduring problem, which has never been resolved. It has to do with our differing understanding of justification. “They” believe in infusion, “we” believe in imputation. Now what does this really mean?
The classic way of putting this is that, as Anglicans, we believe we become righteous in God’s eyes as soon as we come to Christ and are regenerated. We remain righteous, in God’s eyes, no matter how much we may actually fail to live that righteousness in our lives.
Here is how the ninth article of religion (1561) puts it: “Man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated.”
“Doth remain”! This means that we are both sinners and saved, at the same time, throughout our Christian lives. It is a vital point. It is called theological anthropology, and declares the tragic truth that we are, as Christians, both saved to the max and human (i.e., sinners) to the max, simultaneously. God views us as totally “righteous” in Christ, even though we are - in practice - still sinners.
So what does Rome teach about our justification? Rome teaches infusion - we are not viewed by God as “righteous”, until we actually are “righteous” in our experience. In other words, our being “right” before God isn’t fully real until we are 100% “right” in our actual living.
From this teaching of infusion, the Church of Rome has made it a point of dogma (since 1711 at least), that human beings possess free will. If I am, through infusion, on the road north, then let’s track this artificially enhanced image of man right on back to the south side of our salvation. Salute the fair lord of all the earth, “Man”! He is free to choose and also free to un-choose.
Reformation Protestants hold a deeper view than this of humanity’s loss. We believe that free will was lost with the Fall, and no matter how smart we are, we always choose the self serving wrong unless by God’s grace we are given to choose the right. Reformation Protestants always wish to remind Rome that Peter’s greatness consisted in his repented-of fallenness and weakness of will, and that 100 percent of Good Friday’s observers voted for Barabbas.
Thus I, for one, am happy yet to protest. I could also protest about the Bible: we weight it differently than they. I could also protest about the authority question: We cannot trust a human individual, no matter how fine, to rule our spirits before the Lord. I could also protest the place of Mary, although I still think The Song of Bernadette (1943) is maybe Hollywood’s best hymn to orthodoxy. There are several other matters, too, which still deserve our protest. But the big one is theological anthropology. As long as the Church of Rome annuls the simul iustus et peccator [simultaneously justified and a sinner] result, on our this-world side, of the Gospel’s declaration of our justification on the merits of Christ alone, then we cannot go there. We have to stay where we are.
_______________________________________________________ A Response to Paul Zahl's Article in the December 2005 Issue
Anglicans on Imputation/Infusion
Thank you for giving us Paul Zahl’s explanation of the difference between Protestant and Catholic doctrines of justification, in terms of the difference between “imputation” and “infusion” (Romeward: not an option, TAP Nov. 2005). He focuses our attention on a profoundly important issue much neglected in modern Anglican theology. However, as is so often the case in matters of Protestant-Catholic antitheses, Anglicans must find themselves on both sides of this imputation-infusion divide. Classical Anglican divinity (as represented, e.g., by Richard Hooker) would argue for both an imputed righteousness and an infused righteousness. “Thus [says Hooker] we participate in Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth, and afterwards more fully both our souls and bodies made like unto his in glory.” (Laws V, 56, 11) “God giveth us both the one justice and the other: the one by accepting us for righteous in Christ; the other by working Christian righteousness in us…Thus we receive all at one and the same time…they go together.” (Sermon II, 21) Hooker’s chief quarrel with the Church of Rome in this regard is that Rome fails to distinguish between that perfect righteousness of Christ which is ours by imputation, and that infused righteousness, imperfect in our present life, perfected only in heaven. The Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (Session VI, 1547) substantiates Hooker’s misgiving.
Robert Crouse, Crousetown, N.S. |
|||
|
|
Paul Zahl is a
speaker and writer well known throughout the Anglican Com munion and
beyond. He is currently dean of Trinity Episcopal School for
Ministry in Ambridge, PA. |
Copyright The Anglican Planet © 2005 |