Anglican Bishop Challenges Beliefs on Heaven

I suppose that most wouldn't be shocked if I stated that the Church of England's Bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright, has called into question the traditional view of the afterlife that Christians have adhered to for the better part of the last few hundred years. I know I wasn't. What did shock me was just how ancient his take on what happens to us after death is. This week, Time magazine ran an article outlining his views of the New Testament, and how it deals with the question of our life after death.

It is definately worth a read. You can the online edition at this link.

Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

In a recent series of postings on a mailing list I am a part of, a discussion got started on the topic of Transubstantiation, a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the way in which Christ is present in the Eucharist. In the process, an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was quoted. One portion of the document really got my dander up...

That portion, and my response, follow.

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but "This is my body" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).

This is just plain lousy theology. First, it limits God based on our understanding. Second, it works against reinforcing the Dogma of the Incarnation because it promotes displacement theology - the idea that when God moves in, humanity (or, in this case, breadanity) moves out. This is in direct conflict with the Dogma of the Hypostatic Union, which states that God united with Man in the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. The man did not have to move out to make room for God, and if he had, then Jesus Christ couldn't bridge the gap between God and us.

A theology of Transubstantiation, as explained above, does far more violence to Christological truth than most any other dogmatic view concerning the Eucharist - except possibly the concept of blessed memorial (a concept that denies the plain words of Jesus).

Further, whoever prepared this particular response, while rightly quoting Thomas Aquinas, missed the boat... namely Saint Paul. Paul was able to speak of the consecrated Eucharist as bread and cup... heck, the modern Roman liturgy does too, paraphrasing Paul (When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come again). Thomas Aquinas may have been a learned, pious, and holy man, but he really overstepped what was needed and appropriate with much of his writing. This is one glaring example of that fact.

How Should Christians View the Old Testament?

"We further affirm our belief that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for in both the Old and New Testaments eternal life is offered to mankind through Christ." from Article Four: The Scriptures (CC-SST)

Indeed, the statement from the Synod of St. Timothy's Articles of Religion (which is drawn from the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion) is true and accurate. But what does it mean? This is a matter that many Christians study and discuss. I'd like to share some of my views with you today.

1) The Old Testament is a reliable source of historical information.
In spite of the many contemporary scholarly assaults on the reliability of the historical information contained in the Old Testament, I accept its historicity as genuine and valid. Far from disproving the Old Testament, science has an uncanny knack for proving the truth of Scripture (including many Old Testament 'fables') more often that it disproves them.

2) The Old Testament is a reliable source of prophecy.
Obviously, as a Christian believer, I see the Old Testament as the prophecy of Christ. From Christ's presence in the Creative act (see Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew), to the promise of a redeemer in Genesis 3, to the Burning Bush, the Prophetic voices, and even the visitor in the Firey Furnace, Jesus Christ is testified to throughout the Old Testament.

3) The New Testament is the fufillment of the Old Testament.
Let's take a look at this concept more deeply. The New Testament takes Old Testament principles and morphs them into something greater. While the New Testament is not contrary to the Old, the New Testament supercedes the Old in matters of faith and morals. As a result, things that we see in the Old Testament do not set precidence for Christians of the New Testament. War, a common occurance in the Old Testament between Israel and other nation-states, is transformed into a spiritual reality. Christians are not to care for the changes and chances of this world's nations, for they are soldiers of God's Kingdom against the forces of Satan. We have a different battle to fight. The Death Penalty, once demanded for many immoral and sinful acts, was commuted by Christ himself when he pardoned the woman caught in the act of adultery. The genuine death penalty that exists is no longer a civic concern but a spiritual one - the ultimate separation of the evil from God's eternal love at the day of Judgement.

4) The New Testament and its covenant supercedes the Old Testament and its covenant.
The Church is the Israel of God. No DNA lineage or national identity can lay claim to being God's Chosen People. Only the Church, called by Christ's name, washed by Water and the Spirit, and earnestly seeking Christ the Savior can rightly be called the Israel of God. This belief, often called supersessionism or replacement theology, is an integral part of the message of the New Testament. This is not a form of anti-Semitisim, though sadly many people have twisted it to become anti-Semitic. All people, Jew and Gentile, have access to God through Christ Jesus.

Indeed, the Old Testament is not contrary to the New; it is a foreshadowing of it; but its morals and practices have been given new and deeper meaning by Jesus Christ in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament.

Apostolic Succession

The following is a posting of a response to a question on "Primitive Catholic Fellowship", an e-group I moderate on Yahoo! Groups. The question, in a nutshell, is "Why bother to have Apostolic Succession?"

Apostolic Succession is composed of two very important elements.

1) Apostolic Truth
2) Apostolic Recognition

As you have already stated, Apostolic Truth is vital for any community of faith.

Apostolic Recognition (or the historic Episcopate), referring to the laying on of hands as a means of transmitting authority for mission and ministry is a second matter. While there are several citations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, one only really needs to read the Scriptures in this instance to find a strong case for it.

First, the fact that there is at least a two-fold ordained ministry in Apostolic times is attested to in the Acts of the Apostles. At first, the Apostles operated as the only 'set apart' ministers of the Church. The twelve quickly replaced Judas (and the Greek word episcopos is used in Acts 1:20 to describe his vacated position) and after Pentecost they began to minister. After a time, the selected seven to serve the Church, laid hands upon them, and they became the first deacons (Acts 6: 1-7). It becomes clearly obvious, however, that they had a different ministry than the apostles/overseers. For example, they could baptize, but they could not impart the Holy Spirit (resuting in James and Peter having to go to Samaria to pray over those baptized by Philip (Acts 8: 14-17).

Now we come to the case of the Apostle Paul. For many, Paul is the absolute proof that Apostolic Succession is un-necessary. In fact, he states in the introduction to 1 Corinthians that he is, "chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ." This man, the great Apostle to the Gentiles was unquestionably chosen to minister as an Apostle by Jesus Christ directly...

So it's funny that the Holy Spirit moves in Acts 13, commanding the prophets and teachers of the Church of Antioch to 'dedicate Barnabas and Saul for the special work to which I have called them." Jesus alrady called him to be an Apostle to the Gentiles... to preach the good news of repentance and mercy... so why the prayer? Why the setting apart?

The leaders of the Church at Antioch were established themselves by the apostles. They, in turn, recognized the call of God on Paul and sent him forth to lead a missionary effort. The Church participated in the ministry set in motion by God. Paul, a man who stated he was beholden to no man for his authority, submitted to the laying on of hands in obedience to the Holy Spirit's calling, in order to do the will of God.

Why? We'll probably never know. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to cop out of the discussion, it is something we simply cannot understand.

Are there Ante-Nicene references to Apostolic Succession, both doctrinally and through the laying on of hands? Yes. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Origen, and even the Apostolic Constitutions speak of the practice. But if you don't accept it on this Scriptural basis (as well as the other Scriptures that could be brought into play on the topic), then there really isn't a point in quoting the ANF, is there?

Now, to take a moment to debate the merits and long-term effects of Succession...

Obviously the tacticle succession hasn't been effective against preventing heresy. Plenty of people have the historic episcopate and are wallowing in the bog (so to speak). When the Church got split up, first in the Montanist and Donatist eras, and later in the politicization of the Church, the episcopate was comprimised. Thus, all kinds of people claim (and do have) the tactile succession, but have erred greviously in their manner of living or in the content of the faith they profess. The laying on of hands is not an insurance policy against heresy, mainly because it has been used as a weapon since the early 300's.

On the other hand, while I'd take the Apostolic Faith over any mere line of bishops any day, we would be absolutely foolish if we refused to accept the laying on of hands if it was offered to us. Why intentionally deprive ourselves of both sides of Apostolic Succession?

Let us also remember, we cannot take the ministry upon ourselves. As a child I felt a calling to the priesthood, but I couldn't ordain myself. Someone has to examine candidates, train them, and then recognize them through some means... if one could simply delcare themselves ordained, then Simon Magus would have needed nothing other than to be a faithful Christian in order to recieve the apostolic power to confer the Holy Spirit. Or, even more to the point, the Samaratans of Acts 8 wouldn't have needed Peter and John to lay hands on them... or even Philip to baptize them. All they should have needed to hear was the preaching by Philip, and then they could have handled the rest of it themselves.

In closing, is someone outside of the historic episcopate doomed? Surely not. However, why would someone want to refuse the gift of continuity through the laying on of hands to compliment the apostolic teachings of the early Church? God raised up Paul, but Paul still allowed himself to submit to the Church's earthly means of being set apart for ministry.

Who are we to argue with God... or Paul?