The Roots of Sacramental Minimalism in the West

By putting together Augustine's responses to Donatism and Pelagianism one ends up with a baptismal rite and theology which is considerably narrow in its approach in comparison, at least, with the great mystagogues of the West Syrian East and even Ambrose himself. Here, unfortunately, even if his responses to these heretical movements were necessary, we see the beginnings of a minimalistic approach to rite, interpretation, candidate, minister, and Church and a loss of sacramental and liturgical richness in favor of a concern for sacramental validity. While he himself knew a full and rich rite for Christiain initiation there is no question but that: "If ever there was a man who held that the solemn paraphernalia of the actual rite was of little importance, but that the sacrament of baptism by water was indispensible for salvation, that man was Augustine" (Frederick van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop, 1961). This minimalism in rite, formula, and interpretation will continue to reinforce an unfortunate theology of baptism even today as almost a privatized "minute wash" to rid infants, as soon as possible after birth, of the inherited sin of Adam (not necessarily of Eve) and so to ensure their eternal beatific destiny "in case something should happen." On this issue, at least, Western Christianity not only learned its Augustinian theological foundations well but has been abundantly successful through the centuries in catechizing the faithful. Indeed, although the practice and custom of infant baptism comes long before any theological rationale for it is made, from Augustine on, infant baptism will become seen as necessary and expected, rather than permitted, in the life of the Church.

--Maxwell Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (The Liturgical Press, 1999), 156-7.

Questions recently asked of me...and the answers I gave

(1) Do you see any significant shifts in Western Christianity that are of concern to you?

The shift that most concerns me in the West is the steady dismantling of philosophical and cultural modernity. On the one hand, we can rightly rejoice that modernity has finally been revealed for the tower of Babel that it was. Modernity placed all of its hopes on the supposed certainty of its scientific tools and "objective" methodologies. On the other hand, nothing has yet stepped into the philosophical and cultural void, which in recent times has been dubbed, for better or for worse, "postmodernity."

The naked truth that we now face is the realization that the church has been just as dependent on modernity as the rest of the society, and so modernity's demise marks the demise of much that Christians once took for granted. The postmodern world may offer fresh opportunities to preach the Gospel to a dying world, but what many Christians are discovering is that the message and methods once considered "tried and true" simply do not answer the questions or address the needs of the postmodern individual, who quite naturally retreats to the inner self to find any semblance of meaning or purpose for existence.

Once we realize that the default position of postmodernity is "self-absorption," then the success of the contemporary megachurch model is easy to understand, which has all but turned narcissism into a Christian virtue. Recent events have revealed how susceptible today's evangelical megachurch leaders are to the cult of personality, and thus how vulnerable they are to the narcissistic culture we live in. And yet, the megachurch model is held up by today's evangelical community as the measure and standard of kingdom-building success! What makes the megachurch such a dangerous response to the needs of postmodern man is that, rather than challenging self-absorption, it embraces and institutionalizes it. The resulting paradox is a hugely successful message that is profoundly vacuous of any objective content.

(2) What hopeful signs, if any, do you see in Western Christianity?

Ironically, the challenge of postmodernity is also an opportunity to recover a Gospel unencumbered with the artifices and constructs imposed upon it by modernity. Not only have the so-called "secular" institutions of modernity been revealed as naked, but the denominational and confessional ones of our churches have as well. This opens up new possibilities for ecumenicity based largely on the rediscovery, reappraisal, and return to more ancient (i.e. "pre-modern") paths. Some of this is already occuring in the emerging church movement, though I hesitate to give it my full endorsement because of its infancy, and because it too often appears to be the "blind leading the blind." However, there are "prophets" of a previous age, who I believe anticipated the demise of modernity, and who of late are being rediscovered and reappraised -- thinkers like Bonhoeffer, Barth, Rahner, and C.S. Lewis come readily to mind. This gives me great hope.

(3) What is your advice to students studying to become pastors today?

Stay away from self-help gurus in evangelical guise, and "how to" manuals on church growth or on successful ministry ventures (e.g. youth, adult, small group, etc.). Read lots of history, until you become sick of it. And then read some more. Learn the lessons of history by relating them to the present. Be patient with those who are ignorant of history. And when your patience for people runs low or runs out, pray earnestly for more. Don't neglect yourself or your family's well-being. In fact, put your family first, always. Enjoy the life that God has given you by making the most of those fleeting moments when you haven't a care in the world. Never feel guilty about having a good time, and resist the temptation of feeling self-righteous when the world seems to be against you. Most of all, pray that God will keep you humble.

(4) What advice would you give to those already pastoring who are feeling burnt out?

Find a way to take a break or a sabbatical. Go on a retreat. Better yet, take a long family vacation. Renew your relationship with your spouse, your family, friends and loved ones. Call an old friend who you haven't talked to in a long while. Seek the advice and counsel of an older pastor or clergy. Confide in them. Whatever you do, do not do it alone.

(5) What is your personal (general) rule of life (devotion/prayer/Scripture, etc.) as a pastor and/or professor of theology?

I rely on the constant and relentless study of the Bible, reading the lives of the saints, and using devotional aids to prayer, like prayer beads, prayer manuals/books, or seasonal disciplines like the stations of the cross to encourage and to embellish my personal regimen of prayer.

Papal Primacy and Jurisdictional Conditioning

I've been enjoying the beaches and warm Gulf waters here on South Padre Island since the weekend, and plan to finish out my vacation in relative intellectual inactivity. But naturally my thoughts do turn from time to time to theology, and specifically to the discussion of papal primacy that began before my vacation. I'd like to share a few observations with you now.

First, the formal dogmatic definitions relating to the extent and nature of the universal primacy of the Papacy were made since 1054, that is to say, not only within the context of a divided church but one in which the Western delimitations of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church were virtually reckoned as coterminus with the jurisdictional bounds of the Western Patriarchate, i.e., the Latin Church (setting aside for the moment the question of the Eastern Catholic, a.k.a. Uniate churches).

This is not to say that Rome did not make such claims before the Great Schism, but that the particular dogmas that have presented such seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reunion with the East (e.g., Vatican 1) were defined subsequent to the East/West divide. The importance of this observation I trust will become apparent in light of my second observation.

Second, such controversial definitions as Pastor Aeternus are historically and jurisdictionally conditioned. The waning temporal power of the Papacy in the 19th century combined with the Church's struggle against modernity in both the political and theological realms are apparent to any astute reader of the history leading up to the First Vatican Council. However, the jurisdictional conditions are not readily appreciated, and I think this is where more work on the ecumenical front needs to be done. (This is no doubt due primarily to the Roman Catholic claim of ecclesiastical ultimacy -- i.e., that the Roman Communion, in and of itself and all by itself, is the Catholic Church in its fullness.)

Among the many titles that have been ascribed to the Pope in history, three stand out for attention: (1) Bishop of Rome, (2) Patriarch of the West, and (3) Universal Pastor. In the papacy's own self-consciousness all other titles, rights, and authority stem from the first of these, i.e. "Bishop of Rome." The Roman Church's apostolic pedigree afforded it a prestige that was unrivaled by any other church, and its special role as the guardian of the apostolic faith was unquestioned among the ancients. With regards to the third title -- Universal Pastor -- I would contend that this was originally exercised (i.e., during the first millennium) as a primus inter pares role amongst the five great Patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) -- much like the ecumenical patriarchal role that Constantinople enjoys today in the East.

It is in the capacity of the second role -- Patriarch of the West -- that Rome has over time, and especially in the post-schism era, extended its jurisdictional authority more or less successfully. This is where I believe the jurisdictional conditioning of Rome's dogma of papal supremacy, particularly Pastor Aeternus, is relevant. Since 1054 the Western Patriarchate has become not only worldwide in its scope but virtually universal in its self-perception. I suggest that what has happened in the wake of the Great Schism is the blurring and confusion of the roles of "Patriarch of the West" and "Universal Pastor," and that Rome's present stance on primacy, which ascribes a universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction to the Pope, should be read as applying only to the Western Patriarchate and her subsidiary Eastern satellites (i.e., the Eastern Catholics), and NOT to the other four Patriachates (in which case a primacy of honor, rather than jurisdiction, would be not only more acceptable but more in line with the Pope's role in the first millennium).

Anyway, these thoughts are still seminal. I appreciate any suggestions or comments.

Until next time.

Unpacking "The Gift of Authority": Toward an Anglican View of Papal Primacy

While a full reading of ARCIC II's "The Gift of Authority" (TGOA) is well worth the effort, and necessary for a full appreciation of this important issue, alas, the nature of the blogosphere is such that we can only effectively handle soundbites. TGOA is a lengthy document, but certainly the most controversial, and most important, section is paragraph 47 (see my last entry below). The following is an attempt to unpack its meaning.

(1) The affirmation of a "specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth" afforded to the Bishop of Rome goes beyond the primus inter pares role that the Eastern Orthodox are willing to acknowledge. Eastern Orthodoxy merely affords a primacy of honor to the Pope; TGOA affords a universal primacy that is exercised as a specific ministry for discerning truth.

(2) By affirming such a role the Anglican partners in this dialogue have made a huge post-Reformation concession, though not one that is necessarily inconsistent with the understanding of the "undivided church of the first millennium," at least not in the West. Western theologians as early as Irenaeus have recognized the Church of Rome's special guardianship of the apostolic faith; regional churches and even Patriarchates have made final appeals to the Papacy on points of controversy and doctrine throughout the first millennium; and even the ecumenical councils were not deemed to be so until ratified by the Bishop of Rome. (It is interesting to note that Eastern Orthodoxy has not presumed to hold an ecumenical council since the Great Schism.)

(3) The statement leaves enough "wiggle room" for the Anglican partners in this dialogue, on the one hand, to affirm this special ministry of discernment for the Bishop of Rome, while, on the other hand, leaving the question wide-open of whether or not the Bishop of Rome can legitimately "pronounce from the chair of Peter" on behalf of the whole Church while the Church is in its present state of division and separation.

(4) This point is especially brought home in the restriction that TGOA places upon such "solemn definitions," namely that "any such definition is prounounced within the college of those who exercise episcope and not outside that college." (Notice the designation "those who exercise episcope." Why didn't they just say "bishops"? My hunch is that this is the closest that the Roman Catholic partners could/would come in acknowledging Anglican ministerial orders.) Be that as it may, it is worth noting that this restriction is at considerable variance with the teaching of Vatican I, which affords the Bishop of Rome the authority to speak of himself in speaking for the Magisterium.

(5) Under such conditions, namely the Pope speaking authoritatively within the college of bishops of a united Church, the Anglican partners in this dialogue have made another large concession: such pronouncements are "wholly reliable," and thus implicitly irreformable, which could indeed be argued (as the Roman partners invariably did argue) is but "papal infalliblity" writ small.

(6) HOWEVER (and this is a big however), by affirming that papal pronouncements have "no stronger guarantee from the Spirit than have the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils" TGOA perhaps has left the door wide open for the Anglican argument that councils "may err, and sometimes have erred" (cf. Article 21). If it's good for a council, it's good for the Pope.