“Sure, there are some Catholics who are Christians, but…”
I’ve said something like this before, and I’ve heard a few others under the Evangelical umbrella make similar concessions. The point of such an observation is to avoid painting every individual Catholic with the same brush. It is to reluctantly acknowledge the sure reality that they’re not all spellbound by Rome. The law of averages demands that at least a few of them are genuine believers, and so yes, there are some Catholics who are reallyEvangelicals Christians. There, isn’t that very inclusive and gracious?
No, not particularly.
The problem I now have with this pseudo-graciousness is not necessarily that it is a false observation. I’m not suggesting that we amend it and say that most (or all) Roman Catholics are Christians. In reality, we simply don’t know the proportion of professing Catholics who have a genuine trust in Jesus and who thus “walk in the Spirit”. But is it not also true that we don’t know the proportion of Evangelicals whose faith is genuine? Why is it that only some Catholics are Christians, with the implication being that most if not all Evangelicals are Christians?
My point is that if we can say that there are some Catholics who are Christians, can we not equally say that there are some Evangelicals who are Christians? Or perhaps better still, shouldn’t we simply leave the judging to the One who will judge justly? If we don’t, then where will the madness end? Calvinists will admit that some Armenians are Christians, hyper-Calvinists will concede that some Calvinists are Christians, and so on until eventually we’ll have a denomination of Christianity that claims there are actually no Christians at all; the subset of genuine Christians amongst the professing ones will be the nullset, if you’re into that kind of thing.
When Jesus tells the story about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25), the basis of the separation is not whether one is Evangelical or not. The goats are not all the non-Evangelicals of this world, and the sheep are not all the Evangelicals plus a couple of the Catholics that made the cut. The difference maker -- and this is a hard pill for us doctrine fiends to swallow -- is not our denomination, but our treatment of fellow human beings. The ones accepted by God will show themselves to be those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick. On this basis, might we say that there aren’t many people across all religions and denominations who are as right with God as they’d like to think they are? In light of this, shouldn’t we remove the plank from our own eye before pointing out the speck in our neighbours’?
I’ve said something like this before, and I’ve heard a few others under the Evangelical umbrella make similar concessions. The point of such an observation is to avoid painting every individual Catholic with the same brush. It is to reluctantly acknowledge the sure reality that they’re not all spellbound by Rome. The law of averages demands that at least a few of them are genuine believers, and so yes, there are some Catholics who are really
No, not particularly.
The problem I now have with this pseudo-graciousness is not necessarily that it is a false observation. I’m not suggesting that we amend it and say that most (or all) Roman Catholics are Christians. In reality, we simply don’t know the proportion of professing Catholics who have a genuine trust in Jesus and who thus “walk in the Spirit”. But is it not also true that we don’t know the proportion of Evangelicals whose faith is genuine? Why is it that only some Catholics are Christians, with the implication being that most if not all Evangelicals are Christians?
My point is that if we can say that there are some Catholics who are Christians, can we not equally say that there are some Evangelicals who are Christians? Or perhaps better still, shouldn’t we simply leave the judging to the One who will judge justly? If we don’t, then where will the madness end? Calvinists will admit that some Armenians are Christians, hyper-Calvinists will concede that some Calvinists are Christians, and so on until eventually we’ll have a denomination of Christianity that claims there are actually no Christians at all; the subset of genuine Christians amongst the professing ones will be the nullset, if you’re into that kind of thing.
When Jesus tells the story about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25), the basis of the separation is not whether one is Evangelical or not. The goats are not all the non-Evangelicals of this world, and the sheep are not all the Evangelicals plus a couple of the Catholics that made the cut. The difference maker -- and this is a hard pill for us doctrine fiends to swallow -- is not our denomination, but our treatment of fellow human beings. The ones accepted by God will show themselves to be those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick. On this basis, might we say that there aren’t many people across all religions and denominations who are as right with God as they’d like to think they are? In light of this, shouldn’t we remove the plank from our own eye before pointing out the speck in our neighbours’?
by that rationale, arn't a lot of Muslims christians? and in fact atheists like Bill Gates who give away their fortune to the sick and the poor.
ReplyDeletethe idea of "being a Christian" starts to seem a bit of a pointless moniker.
Something I've wondered myself is that if professing Christians can in fact not be Christians at all, can professing atheists be Christians.
ReplyDeleteOf course I wouldn't say that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are sufficient conditions for being a Christian. It is, after all, a matter of the heart.
"But a Jew (we might substitute the word "Christian" in here) is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."
Richard Hays says that the syntax of salvation is not that we know God, but that God knows us. Whom does God know? I suppose the point of this post is that we don't always know the ones God knows. He is a God full of surprises when it comes to salvation.
yeah. I did get the point of the post, and its definitely a worthwhile conversation. the sub sects of sub sects of Christianity get a bit ridiculous. But by putting such a 'god knows' slant on it... would there be a worry that maybe god only knows those who haven't 'fallen for' the Jesus stuff. At some point there has to be a received dogma, for an organised faith to exist in any real sense
ReplyDelete