The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 1

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics

Fatal Progress?

Several weeks ago an internet friend bought to my attention an article
written by Bishop Samuel Smith, General Chairman of the Apostolic World
Christian Fellowship (AWCF), entitled "Fatal Progress" which was posted
on the AWCF web site (www.awcf.org/chairman.html).  This article
challenges the attempt by some Apostolics to engage Roman Catholics in a
constructive dialogue about the Christian faith and questions whether
these Apostolics are truly Apostolics.  For Bishop Smith any dialogue
with Catholics is "Fatal Progress", an abandonment of Biblical
Christianity and a departure from the Apostolic Pentecostal faith.

As an Apostolic who welcomes the opportunity for dialogue with Catholics
and who eagerly participates in such dialogues, Bishop Smith's article
raised many questions and created grave concerns.  Can one be an
Apostolic and receive others as Christians?  Can one be an Apostolic and
participate in ecumenical forums where the Christian faith is
discussed?  Can one be an Apostolic and not embrace Fundamentalist
theology and Common Sense Philosophy?  Is it really "Fatal Progress" to
be Apostolic, ecumenical, and give the Apostolic faith a contemporary
expression?  Although I have raised and answered these questions in the
Higher-Fire forum before, I would like to address them again in
interaction with Bishop Smith's article. 

The Nature of Dialogue

The Apostolic reluctance to dialogue has its source in the American
Protestant Fundamentalist theology which the majority of  Apostolics has
embraced.  This theology reduces the Christian faith to certain
"Fundamentals" which define the essence of Christianity and which must
be embraced in order for one to be considered Christian.  These
"Fundamentals" were developed in response to the  liberalism of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century which challenged  "traditional"
tenets of the Christian faith; the authority of the Bible, the virgin
birth, the resurrection of Christ, the deity of Christ, et. al.
Fundamentalists saw liberals as having  departed from the essence of
Christianity and called for separation from liberals and a return to a
Biblical faith. 

The Fundamentalists were right!  Liberals had departed from from the
Biblical faith.  However, the Fundamentalists call for separation had
dire consequences.  Rather than answering the many questions  raised by
Liberals, engaging in a dialogue, Fundamentalists isolated themselves
from their critics and engaged in a self edifying monologue.  This
monologue failed to meet the challenges to the Christian faith posed by
Liberalism and to express the Christian faith in a manner intelligible
to the contemporary culture.  Fundamentalists became marginalized and
unable to  influence the world in which they lived, the world which
Christ had called to evangelize.

As we approach the third millennium Liberalism as a viable Christian
movement has crashed and burned.  Why?  Because of the concerted polemic
of Fundamentalists against the liberalism since the beginning of the
twentieth century one would think that the Fundamentalists were at least
partially responsible for this victory.  However, this is not the case! 
The Fundamentalist monologue did very little to persuade liberals of
their departure from Biblical Christianity.  While Fundamentalists were
content to separate and isolate from their opponents, Neo-Orthodox
theologians took the liberal challenge to the Christian faith seriously
and choose the path of dialogue.  These theologians listened to the
concerns of their liberal critics, studied their theology, and met their
challenges utilizing the very best in scholarship.  The ashes of
Christian liberalism strewn throughout Christendom are their legacy, not
that of Fundamentalism.

It may seem that I have traveled far from our topic of "The Apostolic
Dialogue With Catholics", but it is important to understand our subject
in its historical context.  The Apostolic reluctance to dialogue with
other Christians is part of the legacy of Fundamentalism which
Apostolics have uncritically embraced.  For conservative Apostolics
dialogue with other Christians is equated with compromising the
"Fundamentals" of the Christian faith.  Bishop Smith identifies dialogue
with "being deceived" and "falling away" from the faith (Mt 24:4, 24; 2
Th 2:1-3). Dialogue means uncritically accepting the theology of other
Christians.

True dialogue does not require acceptance of the theology of other
Christians.  True dialogue does not require the abandoning the
essentials of the Apostolic faith.  True dialogue does require an
attempt to understand the faith of other Christians.  This means reading
their theology, observing their worship, and watching their Christian
life.  Only when this is done can the faith of others be properly
understood and evaluated.

But lets make this personal!  Wouldn't it be wonderful if Apostolic
critics would take the time to study Apostolic theology, observe our
worship, and watch our Christian lives?  Opposition to the Apostolic
faith frequently melts away when our opponents encounter the living
Christ in an Apostolic worship service!  Is this not preferable  to
judging the Apostolic faith by stereotypes, i.e. holy rollers,
apostates, heretics et. al.?

And what about the Apostolic propensity for separation?  It is ironic
that Bishop Smith quotes scriptures to justify the Apostolic separation
from Catholics which are also used by Apostolics to justify the
fragmentation of the Apostolic movement.  The UPCI is not a member of
the AWCF because it believes that other Apostolics are "deceived" and
have "fallen away" from the faith.  The refusal to dialogue with other
Christians mirrors the refusal of Apostolics to dialogue among
themselves.  The slippery slope of separation has led to divisions in
the Apostolic movement over every conceivable doctrinal issue, i.e.
hair, dress, church government, water baptism, et.al.  Apostolics have
never been united on every doctrinal issue.  The statement of faith of
the AWCF is very broad allowing for the doctrinal diversity which exists
in the Apostolic movement.  Its founders were obviously appalled by the
fragmentation of the Apostolic movement and desired a framework for
fellowship which could unite Apostolics.  By questioning the faith of
ecumenical Apostolics Bishop Smith's article is not consistent with this
vision and gives credence to those Apostolics who would fragment the
movement.

A misunderstanding of the biblical call for separation lies at the heart
of Bishop Smith's article.  Before addressing this subject a summary of
the nature of dialogue is in order is in order.  Apostolics who desire
to dialogue with Catholics are not "deceived" and have not "fallen away"
from the Apostolic faith.  These Apostolics seek an understanding of the
faith of other Christians that they might effectively present the
Apostolic faith.  They realize that for the Apostolic faith to be
credible in the contemporary world it must answer the questions and
challenges of its critics and not retreat into the Apostolic "ghetto" of
a self serving monologue which passionately repeats  traditional
Apostolic theology and warns against apostasy and heresy without true
understanding.   Like the Neo-Orthodox theologians who facilitated the
demise of liberalism, these Apostolics desire to use the very best of
contemporary scholarship to present and defend the Apostolic faith. 
They realize that for the Apostolic faith to be credible to those
outside the Apostolic movement it must engage in a critical and
constructive dialogue.  This means acknowledging commonalties of faith,
life, and experience with other Christians while retaining and
creatively and intelligently presenting Apostolics distinctives. 
Apostolics who desire to dialogue with other Christians also want to
dialogue with other Apostolics.  The fragmentation of the Apostolic
movement is a scandal to Christ and a hindrance to evangelism.  Christ's
prayer for the Church is for unity, not separation.  Finally, Apostolics
who desire to engage in dialogue with Catholics question the bondage of
Apostolic theology to Fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism as a theology,
ideology, and philosophy has lost its intellectual credibilty in the
contemporary world.  The legions of former Apostolics who have left the
Apostolic movement while retaining the essentials of the Apostolic faith
bear witness to the need for the representation of the Apostolic faith
for which transcends the boundaries imposed by Fundamentalism.  One can
be an Apostolic Pentecostal and not embrace Fundamentalist theology.

In my next post I will continue this discussion by presenting  a
Biblical understanding of separation.