Welcome to my theology blog, and to my very first post! I'm glad to have you here, wherever you are coming from: geographically, theologically, and existentially. Lately I've been thinking about the Protestant (especially the Calvinist) tendency to be so negative and pessimistic about human nature. That got me onto Reformed theology, and Michael Horton in particular. It's been quite an adventure.
☞
My claim that Protestants are too “negative and pessimistic” about human nature is going to need some clarification, however. I'll have to explain what I mean by this before getting onto Horton and Reformed theology in subsequent posts.
The best place to start, I think, is with our common Augustinian heritage. Catholics and Protestants stand on common ground when rejecting the following two errors:
In stark contrast to this, secular humanists and communists have a certain optimism about humanity when left to its own devices. They are confident in our ability to make progress toward a “better world” and reach perfection as human beings without God's revelation and grace, and without the Church. The Catholic view (and I mean the official view as expressed in the Catechism) is not “positive” or “optimistic” in that sense – quite the opposite. In the first place, the Church teaches that we have a supernatural vocation. We are called to a Life beyond our natural abilities. We are destined for face-to-face enjoyment of God in heaven. Not that we are all pre-determined to get to heaven, so that it is impossible for anyone to be damned, but that we are all made for heaven. Only in that state of blessedness, participating by grace in the eternal love of the Trinity, can we find complete fulfillment and happiness as human beings. Because “our hearts are restless, and will not find rest until they rest in Thee” (Augustine), it is futile – indeed, disordered and dangerous – to pursue our happiness in the way of immanentism. It is a distorted, false hope that looks forward to ultimate happiness here on this earth, on this side of the veil separating time and eternity. In the second place, the Church affirms the reality of sin and our need for salvation. Utopian thinking typically fails on both of these criteria. One type of utopian thinker would have us look forward to the day when all people will leave behind divisive fear and religious superstition and become “enlightened” in purely atheist or secular terms. Utopian thinkers of this breed put their confidence in human reason divorced from faith, ethics apart from the guidance of the Church, and human goodness without dependence on divine grace. On this view, a truly global community of universal love and peace is humanly possible. Since we are all naturally good – since there is no such thing as original sin – this splendid vision can in principle be realised by humans working together as one. Thanks Holy Spirit (these people would say) but we don't need you to renew the earth, to convict us and cleanse us of sin, to reveal to us the Christ, to lead us all to the Father and so reconcile us all as the Church. The essence of this utopian vision is captured perfectly in John Lennon's “Imagine”. What animates this vision is a certain false hope – a “hope” that has no reference to the vertically transcendent God, a “hope” that does not wait upon the Lord of history. That is not to say that there is no “spirituality” or “religiosity” involved here. But this spirituality, while certainly influenced by Judeo-Christian eschatology, does not acknowledge a transcendent, personal God who graciously saves us from sin and calls us into eternal life. From a Catholic perspective, there are two problems with this vision:
The first point is an expression of Pelagianism, the second is an expression of immanentism.
The Question of Millenialism
This atheistic form of utopianism, which has many historical variants, should not be confused with certain “sacred” forms of utopianism or quasi-utopianism that have appeared in the history of Jewish and Christian thought. This is a complex area, and it would take too much time to tease apart all the issues involved. Suffice it to say that there is no essential contradiction between (1) placing one's hope in the Lord of history, against the pretensions of secular humanism and communism and (2) looking forward to some golden era of peace on earth in the future – a so-called “Millenium”, which may or may not be understood to be literally a thousand years. A Christian (or a Jew) could look forward to an Era of Peace without giving up his sense of our total dependence on the Lord. He could even anticipate the coming of a Golden Age when the Church (or Israel) prospers and triumphs on earth. But from a Catholic perspective, whether such a stance is orthodox will depend on two things: (a) the nature of the “perfection” or “prosperity” or “triumph” that one looks forward to, and (b) how the Era of Peace is brought about. Regarding (a) some Christians in the past have erred by thinking of this prosperity in terms that are too worldly (endless consumption of sumptuous banquets of food, world domination through political force – see here). It would also be an error to think that faith and hope will no longer be required in the New Era, since God will be fully revealed as He is. For it is false to say that we will enjoy already in time, all of the blessings of the saints in heaven, including the impossibility of sinning. Against these two errors, it is necessary to re-affirm two things. First, that the overflowing abundance that God intends for us is in the first place (but not exclusively) a spiritual richness. If our spiritual blessings bear fruit or overflow into the realm of the material, this is never for the sake of physical self-indulgence. Second, that the veil separating time and eternity will only be lifted at the end of time (for each of us at death, for the cosmos as a whole at the eschaton). Until we enter eternity, God withholds His glorious presence – thus delaying the complete fulfillment of his promise of blessing.* * God does this not out of a reluctance to give of Himself, but for the sake of human freedom and to allow for the possibility of history. Under these conditions (eschatological delay) God in His wisdom is able to give far, far more to us. Note also: this mode of withdrawal should not be confused with the withdrawal of God from man in displeasure – for God protects His honour and preserves His holiness – or with the withdrawal of God for the sake of further purification.
Regarding (b), some Protestants believe that Christ will come again in the flesh – not as veiled in the Sacrament, but in glory – to establish a New Christian Era on earth, before the end of time. Catholics cannot agree. On our view, when Christ comes again in glory, time will cease and the final judgement will begin (see Matthew 24 and 25, for example). If I am not mistaken, it is allowable (but not required) for a Catholic to believe that there will be an Era of Peace in the future, as long as it is understood that this Era is inaugurated through a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the sacramental presence of Christ in our midst.
A further point is that it is against the spirit of Christianity – and against the very idea of an Era of Peace – to think that this Era could be brought about through violent revolution or be sustained by political force. But the main point I wish to make here is that hope* for a better world (an "Era of Peace") is compatible with a Christian faith that acknowledges our dependence on God. Under certain conditions, it is possible to believe in an Era of Peace while acknowledging the Christian essentials, including: our fallibility as creatures, our human fallenness, our heavenly destiny, our need for grace, our dependence on Christ and the Spirit for grace, and even (for the Catholic) the sacramental mediation of grace in the Church. It would be a mistake to assume that hope for an Era of Peace automatically implies Pelagian over-confidence in man, or an unchristian “worldliness”. * Some might be reluctant to use the word “hope” in reference to the Era of Peace, given that the Era of Peace that is supposedly “hoped for” is neither God himself, nor the final enjoyment of God in heaven. But I can see no problem here. Someone who loves God above all things, and who acknowledges that our happiness is in God alone (so that our complete fulfillment requires our final possession of God in heaven) – that person can still hope in God for a certain measure of true happiness (blessedness, holiness) on earth – not just for himself, but for all mankind.
.I am now in a position to say what I wanted to say in this post:
First point: There is a world of difference between the utopianism expressed in John Lennon's “Imagine” and (properly qualified) Christian hope for an Era of Peace on earth. Pelagianism and immanentism are present in the former but not in the latter. Second point: As a Catholic, I reject secular humanism and communism with their Pelagianism and immanentism in no uncertain terms. (Frankly, the lyrics of John Lennon's song make me want to throw up. It's a pity, because the tune isn't so bad). On this point Catholics can be proud to stand side-by-side with Evangelical Protestants. The point of disagreement isn't here. So where is the point of disagreement? Where exactly do I take issue with “the Protestant (especially the Calvinist) tendency to be so negative and pessimistic about human nature” as I wrote above? Where or how do (Evangelical) Protestants go too far on this point? Stay tuned for the answers to these intriguing questions!
Comments
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Brendan Triffett ArchivesCategories |