How should we view Rome? Is it a Church?
This question vexes many and it is not so easy to answer.
It's worth revisiting, consideration and elaboration. I would argue the same questions
must be asked when considering American Evangelicalism. In the end, they are
not as distant as many would think.
The Reformers argued the marks of a truly Biblical Church are
the right preaching of the Word, the right administration of the Sacraments and
the presence and exercise of Church Discipline. That's a good starting point.
Many were led to conclude that Rome no longer qualified as a
Biblical Church.
And yet these definitions and criteria are murky and have
been taken in many different directions. It's hard to know where to draw the
lines and how broad or narrow we should be in interpretation.
For many good reasons, the Reformers accepted Roman baptism and
it was common in the Magisterial Reformation to view Rome as 'a' valid Church
in some sense.
Many of them tended to view Roman Catholicism as 'the' Church
right up to the 16th century and then later a clear date was marked
with Rome's formal rejection of Justification by Faith Alone at the Council of
Trent in 1563. Protestants then claimed to take up the mantle of the 'True'
Church and argued that Rome had departed and abandoned its 'true' status... in
rejecting their Reforms.
It's a somewhat absurd narrative and easily dismantled.
There is Biblical precedent for viewing Rome as within the
orbit of the Covenant (Church) and yet also rejecting it as apostate. This
helps in reckoning with Church history and the place and prominence of the Roman
organisation, while at the same time firmly rejecting its claims and/or
validity.
Like the cult of Jeroboam, Rome has sought to establish its
own authority, altar (worship and means of reconciliation) and oracle
(authority).
Jeroboam's cult professed to be Jehovah worship and yet was
rejected as false by the true Prophets. It was considered a form of apostasy
that true believers should have nothing to do with. It represented syncretism,
an acculturated religion wed to the power and objectives of the covenantally
unfaithful Northern Kingdom, the same kingdom that attempted to establish a
counterfeit man-made and man-defined pseudo-Covenant Kingdom of God.
Roman Catholicism cannot be utterly dismissed. For centuries
it was the primary visible manifestation of the Church, and yet it was a 'Church'
in an ever growing state of apostasy. There were certainly dissident groups
that opposed it and worked against it and were persecuted as a result. Many of
these groups rejected the Sacralist-Constantinian model that Rome held and
under slight modification was retained by the Magisterial Reformers. For this
reason Magisterial-Confessional Protestantism's interest in the Medieval
Underground has been minimal and often critical.
There were and perhaps even are some Christians within the
Roman fold but far fewer (I would argue) than many would like to believe. I
would say it was easier in times past to believe there were Christians within
its ranks, especially before the Gregorian Reform of the 11th
century. The centuries prior to this were a time in which there was a great
deal of latitude and lack of uniformity in the doctrine and practice of the
Roman hierarchy. During this period (400-1000) there were many dissidents who
could still operate within the larger Roman framework and even the hierarchy...
and avoid being burned at the stake. Despite her claims to Catholic authority, Rome's
sway was less than universal during this period.
Rome at its core represents syncretism, peace with the world
and its desires, a theological system of blending culture, tradition,
philosophy and basic worldliness within a Christian framework. In truth at
times it is little more than rank paganism blended with a necessarily watered
down form of Christianity.
Rome continues to redefine and change with the times and we
expect it will continue to do so. It has retained the forms and traditions born
of the European Middle Ages, the fusion of Greco-Roman and Teutonic cultures
and yet these forms are constantly being adjusted in terms of their substance.
The same spirit lives within the confines of Protestantism, particularly
its American variety where the Church in the form of Evangelicalism has
possessed great power and cultural influence. Rome produced the Magisterium,
monasticism, crusades, a distinctive progression of architecture and forms of
political power and social ethics.
Evangelicalism represents the same spirit of syncretism and
worldliness. It's the same cancer in a different cultural environment. Its
context is the modern and techno-industrial.
Post-Enlightenment individualist and Capitalist Protestantism isn't
going to manifest the syncretism in the same forms. The disease is the same but
the cultural milieu is totally different. This modern form produces a different
form of philosophical justification for its authority. The forms are different,
but not all that different. It's the same creature with different clothes.
Instead of medieval crusades, the political forms of modern warfare
and chivalry take on a different character. The nature of warfare is different
and the symbols of state power and war are celebrated in a different and yet no
less sacral way.
Instead of monasticism and other forms of Catholic devotion,
Evangelicalism worships work, money and certainly psychology and therapy. These
tasks, functions and concepts have been turned into devotional exercises and
incorporated into liturgy.
Late Antiquity and Medievalism produced the Catholic Mass.
The Post-Enlightenment culture of Evangelicalism produces praise teams, and
liturgical dance.
Instead of Gregorian Chant, Evangelicalism has given us
Christian Contemporary Music.
Instead of Romanesque and Gothic architecture, Evangelicalism
embraces the modern, the theatre, cinema, the video screen, the performance
stage etc...
At this point many conservatives will draw these same
comparisons extolling the old and condemning the new. Both old and new traditions
are born of the same rotten seed. Both need to be condemned.
Evangelicalism is our culture's version of Roman Catholicism.
It's a sort of American Catholicism, a universal church-expression for the
Modern West. It has invaded Catholicism in the form of Pentecostalism and is
becoming the dominant form for the Church in this Age.
It's more or less apostate, having been compromised with the
world, syncretised with power and all forms of worldliness. Its gospel is often
just as false. Many Protestants caricature and misrepresent Rome's
understanding of the Gospel. There are seeds of truth within it, and yet it is
buried by not just works, but the wrong type of works... works dreamed up by
men, deeds that are rooted in a false sacerdotal system and vain tradition, not
the fruits of the Spirit.
Despite many valid criticisms of Rome, most Protestants have
embraced Cheap Grace, a faith that is little more than intellectual assent,
sometimes wed to emotionalism. Others have reduced the Gospel to a series of prescribed
statements, almost coded knowledge concerning forms of rationalistic
methodology and laws of logic. This concept of saving faith is just as barren and
formulaic as the Roman system and in many cases is in danger of obscuring the true
Gospel. Like adherents of Roman Catholicism, many Evangelicals possess a faith
that is little more than ritual, a series of factional shibboleths and in many
cases, superstition.
Once again, are there Christians within the Roman fold? Very
few and I cannot imagine them staying there if they are truly driven to the
Oracular Word and submit to its authority. But what of Evangelicalism?
The Scriptures are clear that though the number of believers
is on the one hand like the stars or even the sands of the sea... on the other
hand, few are saved. It's a vast but relative number. We might also at this
point bring in the theology of the Remnant which some have erred in relegating
exclusively to the Old Testament. But that's a longer topic and for another
time.
Nevertheless these are things to keep in mind as we address
these questions. What's the great threat in the New Testament? Paganism? Not at
all. Unbelievers can only destroy the body and most of the time, they won't
even do that. The constant threat is against false teaching, wolfish false
prophets, and in fact this age is characterised by those that have a form of
godliness but deny the power thereof.
If Evangelicalism is apostate as I have argued, are there any
true believers within its borders?
Certainly, but probably far fewer than many imagine and that
number (I think) is actually dwindling. Most converts I encounter, and this has
been the case for some time now, have been 'saved' to worldview teaching, money
and politics... and have yet to grasp the Cross or the Kingdom. Time will tell
if they persevere. I already know of many that have not or have strayed into
forms of the faith that are fraught with even greater error. Thankfully for all
of us, God is not yet done with His work (of which we are a part) and His
longsuffering knows no bounds.
Evangelicalism has its own philosophers and prophets, men who
elevate Western Modernity, its Enlightenment confidence in science and the
'scientification' of economics, ethics, politics and many other realms of
cultural existence. Many will roll their eyes at the Medieval Scholastics and
their methodology but many Evangelical academics and scholars are in the same
place. Once again, the difference is only the form.
The Northern Kingdom worshipped Jehovah, but a false Jehovah.
Its worship was apostate even though no doubt there were many simple folk
caught up in the politics and culture of the time, that meant well, but were
led astray by false teachers and a desire to live at peace with the cultural
norm.
Of course it was the Northern Kingdom that readily embraced
Baal worship and both Rome and now Evangelicalism fall further into the course
of overt idolatry... the sensuous world-affirming, blood-cult of Baal. Most
Evangelicals draw analogies with abortion and there's no doubt many of the
unborn have been sacrificed due to the cult of the self. It is obscene and
tragic.
But equally as heinous is the Evangelical worship and
approbation of war and militarism. Its death toll is also impressive. What
their false doctrine has done to souls, only God knows that count. Even if
God's Sovereignty is appealed to at this point, in no way is the culpability of
false teaching diminished or eliminated. In crucifying Christ, the Jews (using
the Romans) were fulfilling Scripture but their hands were wicked and they were
under curse for doing it.
Evangelical leaders speak of the culture of life and of
death. If that dubious paradigm is to be accepted then clearly they too belong
within the confines of the culture of death with their celebration of war,
militarism, empire and their fruits of theft, murder and covetousness. We could
also include their equation of rapacious avarice with godliness and
stewardship. Am I exaggerating? Am I guilty of sweeping generalisation?
Maybe. But if so, not by much.
There's a sense in which both Rome and Evangelicalism can be
spoken of as within the orbit of 'The Church', and yet their words must be
rejected, their assemblies avoided, their worship shunned. We can be neighbours
to them but we must understand that true fellowship is probably not going to be
possible. It must be based on the goal of trying to liberate them from its
confines, to pull them away from the spiritual prisons, the bondage of High
Place worship, the doctrines and commandments of men.
During the Exilic period and into the New Testament this same
error is manifested in the Samaritans. Jesus showed mercy to the Samaritans but
never for a moment granted them validity. They were wrong. Salvation was of the
Jews. At that point the Samaritans had more or less 'replaced' the Ten Tribes.
They were imports, and yet were instructed by a Jeroboamic priest of Bethel.
That is the font of the Samaritan religion. They were pseudo-Jews, a perfect
picture of false Christianity in the New Covenant.
Interestingly to the Jews, as covenant apostates the
Samaritans were viewed as somewhat worse
than just mere Gentiles. That's certainly not the mentality of modern
Evangelicalism when it comes to Rome.
While I am surely denounced as a mean-spirited curmudgeon if
not a crank, I would ask readers to understand where I'm coming from and
consider the Scriptures apart from tradition and man-made theological
frameworks, assumptions and philosophical commitments. If what I'm suggesting
about Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism is true, then the leaders of the
movements are actually much worse than secular opponents of Christianity. They
literally are the wolves.
And I can assure you, they will happily find common cause
with secularists, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, even members of the Unification
Church (the Moonies).... that should tell you something about what
Evangelicalism is really about... but they are absolutely hostile to advocates
of Two Kingdom Theology who condemn them on Biblical terms. We are to them the worst of all heretics and
for good reason. In truth we represent antithetical understandings of Christian
doctrine. We could both be wrong but if one of us right, the other side has
succumbed to the forces of darkness and is essentially working for the other
side.
The stakes are that high. This is the war of the ages. Most professing Christians are largely
devoted to fighting the pseudo-battle, a sham conflict generated by our
Adversary.
Here are some links to a couple of related articles: