When I was in high school, I applied for a job as a lifeguard at the local YMCA. I had grown up taking swimming lessons at “The Y” and spent my summers with my brother and sister at their pool. In all my time there, I barely knew what “YMCA” stood for; I just knew it was the local pool. However, when I was interviewing for the lifeguard position, the director of this particular branch emphasized to me that the YMCA was the “Young Men’s Christian Association” and that he expected all his employees to act in a Christian manner. Since I had recently received Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior (remember, I was not Catholic at this time, but Evangelical), I enthusiastically embraced the director’s vision of what YMCA employees should be. Of course, most of my fellow lifeguards spent the weekends partying and drinking; I think there was only one other self-professed Christian on the lifeguard staff. But nonetheless, the director still believed there was something Christian about the YMCA.

Well, it looks like the YMCA no longer agrees: they are officially changing their name to “The Y”. Aside from the silliness of the new name, I do feel a certain sense of loss from the change. I know that The Y has been no more traditionally Christian over the past few decades than many mainline Protestant denominations, but it is still sad that they have formally abandoned their roots. Like the universities and colleges that were begun by sincere Christians but now reject that worldview, The Y no longer wants to be associated with Christianity, as they feel it might hurt their bottom line. This is the reality we now live in, and in many ways it shows the need for a re-evangelization of the Western world that Pope Benedict is calling for.

And an even more important issue: what will happen to that standard song of all dances: the Village People’s “Y-M-C-A”? I really can’t see it catching on without the “M-C-A,” can you?

Each year it seems that it takes ever more ludicrous claims in order to get attention in the mainstream media. The latest from CNN: Gospels don’t say Jesus was crucified, scholar claims. Here is the article with my comments within:

There have been plenty of attacks on Christianity over the years, but few claims have been more surprising than one advanced by an obscure Swedish scholar this spring.

The Gospels do not say Jesus was crucified, Gunnar Samuelsson says.

In fact, he argues, in the original Greek, [beware any argument that is based on the 'original Greek!' It usually means the person is counting on the ignorance of the vast majority of people - including CNN reporters] the ancient texts reveal only that Jesus carried “some kind of torture or execution device” to a hill where “he was suspended” and died, says Samuelsson, who is an evangelical pastor as well as a New Testament scholar. [I wonder if would be called a 'scholar' if he came to traditional conclusions]

“When we say crucifixion, we think about Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion.’ We think about a church, nails, the crown of thorns,” he says, referring to Gibson’s 2004 film, “The Passion of the Christ.”

“We are loaded with pictures of this well-defined punishment called crucifixion – and that is the problem,” he says.

Samuelsson bases his claim on studying 900 years’ worth of ancient texts in the original languages – Hebrew, Latin and Greek, which is the language of the New Testament.

He spent three years reading for 12 hours a day, he says, and he noticed that the critical word normally translated as “crucify” doesn’t necessarily mean that. [So, if this claim is true, he spent around 13,000 hours studying this - does that trump the millions of hours spent by thousands of scholars through the centuries who came to a different conclusion? Ever hear of peer-review?]

“He was handed over to be ‘stauroun,’” Samuelsson says of Jesus, lapsing into Biblical Greek to make his point. [Translation: See? He's a really smarty-pants - he knows Biblical Greek!]

At the time the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing their Gospels, that word simply meant “suspended,” the theologian argues.

“This word is used in a much wider sense than ‘crucifixion,’” he says. “It refers to hanging, to suspending vines in a vineyard,” or to any type of suspension.

“He was required to carry his ‘stauros’ to Calvary, and they ‘stauroun’ him. That is all. He carried some kind of torture or execution device to Calvary and he was suspended and he died,” Samuelsson says. [Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - the work of many scholars over many years and accepted by scholars of both liberal and conservative bent as authoritative - defines it as "an instrument of torture for serious offenses...in three basic forms: a vertical, pointed stake...an upright with a cross-beam above it...or two intersecting beams of equal length." Then it goes on to explain the Roman method of 'stauron' at that time as what we call crucifixion.]

Not everyone is convinced by his research. [In other words, NO ONE is convinced by his research] Garry Wills, the author of “What Jesus Meant,” “What Paul Meant,” and “What the Gospels Meant,” dismisses it as “silliness.” [I'm no fan of Wills, but I couldn't agree with him more. Yet still CNN thought it was worthy of a story.]

“The verb is stauresthai from stauros, cross,” Wills said.

Samuelsson wants to be very clear about what he is saying and what he is not saying.

Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified – only that the Gospels do not say he was.

“I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian,” he is at pains to point out. “I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross.”

But, he insists, it is tradition that tells Christians that, not the first four books of the New Testament. [This would not be an issue, in other words, if not for sola scriptura: if something is only in "tradition" that means it is unreliable. Even if Samuelsson were correct - which he is not - then it would still not be a problem for Catholics, as we accept sacred tradition as being a reliable means of passing on information.]

“I tried to read the text as it is, to read the word of God as it stands in our texts,” he says – what he calls “reading on the lines, not reading between the lines.”

Samuelsson says he didn’t set out to undermine one of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

He was working on a dissertation at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden when he noticed a problem with a major book about the history of crucifixion before Jesus.

What was normally thought to be the first description of a crucifixion – by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus – wasn’t a crucifixion at all, but the suspension of a corpse, Samuelsson found by reading the original Greek.

The next example in the book about crucifixion wasn’t a crucifixion either, but the impaling of a hand.

Samuelsson’s doctoral advisor thought his student might be on to something.

“He recommended I scan all the texts, from Homer up to the first century – 900 years of crucifixion texts,” Samuelsson recalled, calling it “a huge amount of work.”

But, he says, “I love ancient texts. They just consume me.” So he started reading.

He found very little evidence of crucifixion as a method of execution, though he did find corpses being suspended, people being hanged from trees, and more gruesome methods of execution such as impaling people by the belly or rectum.

The same Greek word was used to refer to all the different practices, he found.

That’s what led him to doubt that the Gospels specify that Jesus was crucified.

At the time they were written, “there is no word in Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew that means crucifixion in the sense that we think of it,” he says.

It’s only after the death of Jesus – and because of the death of Jesus – that the Greek word “stauroun” comes specifically to mean executing a person on the cross, he argues.

He admits, of course, that the most likely reason early Christians though Jesus was crucified is that, in fact, he was. [Proof of the idiocy of much of modern biblical scholarship. They completely divorce the texts of the Bible from the world in which it was produced. This guys admits that the reason it was seen as crucifixion is because it was, in fact, a crucifixion. But the text doesn't say it in the way he wants, so now he questions it. This would be like the first accounts of JFK's death just saying he "died of a bullet wound" and then hundreds of years later claiming he really wasn't shot because the original accounts only said "died of a bullet wound" - maybe he just ran into a rogue bullet that was suspended in mid-air in Dallas!]

But he says his research still has significant implications for historians, linguists and the Christian faithful. [Not really]

For starters, “if my observations are correct, every book on the history of Jesus will need to be rewritten,” as will the standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek, he says. [Now we get to the heart of the matter. Like many scholars, he wants to be influential. He is hoping his findings make him popular on the scholarly circuit.]

More profoundly, his research “ought to make Christians a bit more humble,” he says.

“We fight against each other,” he reflects, but “the theological stances that keep churches apart are founded on things that we find between the lines.

“We have put a lot of things in the Bible that weren’t there in the beginning that keep us apart. We need to get down on our knees as Christians together and read the Bible.” [Again, the problem of sola scriptura. When everyone can individually interpret what the Bible 'really says,' then we will never come to agreement and be able to resolve the things that keep us apart. It is only when we humbly accept the authority of the Church that such union is possible.]

Most Catholics today have at one time or another met a self-professed ‘Bible Christian.’ This is someone who claims to only believe what is in the Bible, and nothing else. As such they reject supposedly “added” Catholic beliefs like the papacy, purgatory and the sacraments, because they claim they are not in the Scriptures. In some cases, such as purgatory or even the role of Mary, it does take a deep understanding of the Bible to see their foundations found within its pages. But there are some beliefs rejected by ‘Bible Christians’ that jump out of the pages of the Bible with just a cursory reading. These are what I call the “biggest biblical blind spots of ‘Bible Christians.’”

1) The role of Peter
When I was an evangelical Christian, I often studied the Scriptures, but somehow I never saw Peter as an important figure in the New Testament. Now that I am Catholic, I do not know how I could have been so blind. Peter is almost everywhere in the Gospels and in Acts, and he re-appears in Paul’s letters at times as well. We have three separate instances – from three different Gospels – where Jesus gives Peter a specific, and unique, role in the Church (Matthew 16:17-19, Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17). Yet the vast majority of Protestants – and all ‘Bible Christians’ – fail to recognize any significant role for Peter in the early Church or in today’s Church.

2) The Eucharist
‘Bible Christians’ love to claim that they take the Bible literally, and they note their interpretation of Genesis 1-3 to support their claim. But what about John 6? In that chapter Jesus clearly states that he is the bread of life and one must eat his flesh to have eternal life. Yet no ‘Bible Christian’ takes that literally, and they relegate the Eucharist to a minor, purely symbolic, ceremony. The early Christians, on the other hand, understood the meaning of Christ’s words and made the celebration of the Eucharist the central act of their worship.

3) The role of works in salvation
“We are saved by faith alone!” cries the ‘Bible Christian.’ Yet the Bible is full of warnings on the necessity of works for the salvation of the believer. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) directly links our works with our eternal destination, and the only place in the New Testament where ‘faith alone’ is found (James 2:24) condemns it as unable to bring justification. But somehow the ‘Bible Christian’ still cries out “faith alone!” simply because it is a Protestant tradition.

4) The place of suffering in the Christian life
Often people don’t realize how much a culture impacts their worldview. This is true even for Christians. Our modern Western culture puts pleasure at the center of happiness, and rejects any value to suffering. This cultural presupposition has infected Christians, including ‘Bible Christians’. Yet if you read the letters of Paul, you cannot help but notice the role of suffering in his theology. The Lord himself made it clear how integral suffering would be to Paul’s life when he told Ananias: “Go, for this man [Paul] is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name” (Acts 9:15-16). And of course, the heavy emphasis put on Christ’s suffering and death in the Gospels should tell even the most cursory reader of Scripture how important suffering is in the Christian Faith.

5) The necessity of Baptism
The vast majority of ‘Bible Christians’ believe that one simply has to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior” in order to become a Christian. While some might also eventually baptize such a person, it is not seen as a necessary step in the life of a Christian. Yet nothing could be further from the biblical witness. When the crowd asks after the first Christian sermon how they might be saved, Peter responds, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Baptism was the normative means to enter the Church and no Christian denied this fact until recent years.

It is unfortunate that ‘Bible Christians’ reject such clear directives from the Bible. Such people are usually sincere, well-intentioned followers of Christ. Let us hope and pray that one day they will decide to enter the Church that gave us the Bible – the Catholic Church.

I am very fortunate that my extended family and my wife’s extended family live very close together – we can visit almost all our relatives in one trip. Each time we visit, we make a number of trips on I-75 between Cincinnati (where my parents live) and Dayton (where my wife’s mother lives). A landmark on our trip is Solid Rock Church, an Evangelical church notable for its 6-story high statue of Jesus coming out of the ground to proclaim “touchdown!”:

Yes! Notre Dame scores!

The first time we drove by this monstrosity, one of my kids asked, “What is THAT?” In all honesty, I was at a loss for words. I really just wished that this Protestant church had kept to its iconoclast origins.

Well, it appears that God agreed with my negative opinion of this work of “art:”

6-story Jesus statue in Ohio struck by lightning

MONROE, Ohio – A six-story statue of Jesus Christ was struck by lightning and burned to the ground, leaving only a blackened steel skeleton and pieces of foam that were scooped up by curious onlookers Tuesday.

The “King of Kings” statue, one of southwest Ohio’s most familiar landmarks, had stood since 2004 at the evangelical Solid Rock Church along Interstate 75 in Monroe, just north of Cincinnati.

Continue reading…

I think that's the Holy Spirit coming down...

One of the great developments in theology in the 20th century, both in Catholic and Orthodox circles, was the rise of “eucharistic ecclesiology.” This is the recognition of the central place of the Eucharist in the life of the Church. Or, in the words of Henri de Lubac, “the Eucharist makes the Church.” Without the Eucharist, there would be no Church (and likewise, without the Church there would be no Eucharist). The Church is not just a gathering of like-minded people for a common cause, it is the mystical Body of Christ, and the Eucharist is the means in which this Body stays united.

But what happens when a Christian body proclaiming itself to be a “church” does not celebrate a valid Eucharist? Is it really a Church? Not according to the Catholic Church. In the language of the Church, it is an “ecclesial communion,” which basically means it is a group of Christians who are united in some fashion and its members – individually – are also connected to the Church in an imperfect way through their baptism. But the organization itself is not a church, per se, because it does not have the unifying element of the Eucharist, nor does the organization itself have a true connection to the Church. This is an important distinction that should not be glossed over, and it has far-ranging implications, especially in the area of ecumenism.

The goal of the Catholic Church in ecumenical talks is that each Christian is in communion with the bishop of Rome. In the case of the Orthodox churches – which are true churches because they have a valid Eucharist – this is pursued on a corporate level. The goal is to unite those Eastern churches – as churches – to the bishop of Rome. But in the case of Protestants, this is not the case. It is impossible to unite their corporate bodies to Rome as churches since they do not celebrate a valid Eucharist. Thus, the ideal is simply to allow these groups to join en masse to the Catholic Church, not as churches, but instead as a large group of individuals.

The case of the Anglicans might appear to be an exception, but it is sadly not. In Pope Benedict’s initiative to bring traditional Anglicans into the Church, he has allowed the set-up of personal ordinariates which would be the corporate structure for convert Anglicans to enter the Church. But it is important to note that their existing ecclesial structure would not be incorporated into the Church, but would instead simply cease to exist. If a large body of traditional Anglicans were to enter the Church, they would formally be entering as individuals, not as a body.

The most important part of what makes us a Church is not the fact that we have the same beliefs or a common goal in life. It is that we celebrate the Eucharist, which is the Body of Christ. Let us pray that all Christians will one day be able to celebrate this great mystery at one altar.

In some Evangelical circles, knowledge of the Biblical Greek language is seen as a trump card in any arguments regarding the interpretation of Scripture passages. When a debate occurs, someone just has to say, “well, in the original Greek, this means…” and the argument is won. But the reality is much different: although knowledge of Biblical Greek is helpful in many ways, it does not automatically give one knowledge of the “real” meaning of a passage. Greek is still a human language, and as such, it has its ambiguities just like any language. Furthermore, those who know Greek have their own biases and preconceptions which they bring to the text. Sometimes knowing the Greek can eliminate certain possible interpretations, but never does it alone give you sure knowledge of the meaning of a debated passage.

One of the most well-known Greek teachers in the Evangelical world is Bill Mounce. I myself have used his materials to learn Biblical Greek. Fortunately, even though he is an expert in the Biblical Greek language, Mounce does not fall into the fallacy of thinking that knowledge of Greek gives you some secret knowledge of the inner meaning of the Bible. He understands that proper interpretation includes many factors outside of just knowing the original language.

Case in point: a recent blog post by Mounce caught my eye, as he decided to tackle 2 Peter 1:20-21, which is a heavily debated passage between Catholics and Protestants. This passage states:

RSV: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
NAB: Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
NIV: Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Greek: τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες οτι πασα προφητεια γραφης ιδιας επιλυσεως ου γινεται ου γαρ θεληματι ανθρωπου ηνεχθη προφητεια ποτε αλλα υπο πνευματος αγιου φερομενοι ελαλησαν απο θεου ανθρωποι

The importance of this passage in Catholic/Protestant debates should be clear: does this passage mean that an individual cannot interpret Scripture? If so, that would go a long way towards undercutting one of the bedrocks of Protestantism. After making some introductory comments regarding context, Mounce posits two different possible meanings for verse 20:

Contextually, Peter is saying that the prophecies of Scripture were not made up by the prophets from what they saw and heard in their prophecies and dreams; but what they understood them to mean was the result of the Holy Spirit carrying them along. They too had experienced the direct work of God, just as Peter had on the Mount of Transfiguration. But can we be more specific?

1. One view is to say the passage is talking about origins. These prophecies and interpretations came from God, as opposed to what the false teachers were teaching.

2. A second view is to say the prophecies are not open to any one person’s individual interpretation, but the interpretation must be in conformity to apostolic interpretation. For us today, this would mean Scripture in general.

At this point, I am not sure there is much difference between these two options. Prophecies and their interpretation come from God, not from individuals who vary from the apostolic teaching.

I would be in basic agreement with Mounce at this point, and in fact I would say the two possibilities can be combined into one: the origin of prophecies in Scripture (and all of Scripture for that matter) is the Holy Spirit, and therefore an individual is not allowed to make up their own interpretation of what they mean. Furthermore, any interpretation cannot vary from the deposit of faith – what Mounce calls “apostolic teaching.” But then Mounce goes off the tracks:

But the Catholic REB translates “No prophetic writing is a matter for private interpretation.” This would cement the seat of authority of interpretation in the church and not any individual teacher, preacher, or prophet, and exclude, among others, people like Luther. At one level, this is not saying anything different. The false teachers were wrong to come up with their personal (and different) interpretation of things. But I wonder how Peter would feel being told that his interpretation of the Messianic Kingdom was wrong because is was an individual interpretation and different from the prevailing (i.e., Rabbinic) views of the day. I suspect he wouldn’t agree.

Let’s get this straight: Mounce agrees that it is not proper to get interpretations “from individuals who vary from the apostolic teaching,” yet he thinks the Catholic understanding of the passage could be used against Peter, the chief apostle?! Peter, by definition, cannot have an “individual interpretation” which varied from the apostolic teaching, as he is himself an apostle. Surely Mounce cannot believe that Catholics would use this passage against Peter, the first pope!

And this brings up a more important question: how do we know what is “apostolic teaching”? Most Protestants today would say it is by properly interpreting Scripture. Yet you can see the circular argument: Biblical interpretation cannot vary from apostolic teaching, yet apostolic teaching is determined by (individual) Biblical interpretation. There must be some determination of what is apostolic teaching outside of Scripture. And fittingly, it is the role of the apostles (and their successors), not just any individual, to declare what is apostolic teaching. The reason is that the apostles have the same origin as the Scriptures, for it was the Holy Spirit which gives them their authority.

Although Mounce errs in his understanding of the Catholic interpretation of this passage, I would agree fully with the final paragraph of his post:

As is so often in Greek, the original language gives us the range of interpretive options, but usually it is context that makes the final decision. Greek is not a magic key that reveals the one and only possible interpretation; otherwise we wouldn’t have an endless supplies of Greek commentaries.

Fortunately, Christ did not expect us to be Greek scholars to understand the Bible; instead he gave us apostles and their successors to guard and teach the deposit of faith, which gives us the overall context in which to properly interpret Scripture.

I have always admired Evangelicals’ passion for evangelization (you must have passion for something if it’s part of your name). I wish all Catholics would desire to share their Faith with their neighbor as much as most Evangelicals do. Evangelicals are also on the forefront when it comes to using modern technology to spread the Gospel. They have pioneered outreaches via television, radio and now the Internet. But it is important to remember that Evangelicals do have a number of errors in their theology, especially when it comes to how one obtains salvation, and these errors can creep into their evangelization work.

Case in point: an iPhone app which “evangelizes” people who don’t speak English. An answer to that whole tower of Babel problem, the GM2:8 app will walk a person through the Gospel in a few short steps in their language, so you can bring someone to Christ just by the touch of a button! Here’s what evangelist Ray Comfort (and Kirk Cameron!) say about it:

The problem, of course, is that just walking a person through a few questions and getting them to make the right responses is not evangelization. It’s quiz-taking. Evangelicals like Comfort and Cameron believe that one is saved simply by making a prayer and that once saved, they are always saved. But that is not biblical Christianity. Christ, in the “Great Commission” told his apostles (and all of us):

Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20, emphasis added)

Becoming a Christian, therefore, involves three things:

1) Discipleship: The Christian does not just give an affirmative answer to the question, “Is Jesus Lord?”, he becomes a disciple of Christ, which means that his entire life must revolve around Christ.

2) Baptism: Baptism is the entrance into Christ’s Body, the Church; it is how one becomes a Christian. When the crowds asked Peter how they were to be saved, he didn’t respond “say this prayer and it’s a done deal!” No, he stated, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Baptism has always been the normal way in which one becomes a Christian.

3) Obedience: Once a person becomes a disciple of Christ and is baptized, he must live a life of obedience (cf. Romans 1:5). This means following the commandments and living a moral life. It also means obeying those Christ have put in charge of the Church, i.e. the bishops. Obviously, this cannot be done as a one-time activity, but instead involves a re-ordering of one’s entire life.

Kudos to Evangelicals like Comfort and Cameron for wanting to tell people about Jesus and using modern technology to help their efforts. But unfortunately they are hamstrung by bad theology, which ends up leading to really dumb iPhone apps like GM2:8.

When I was an Evangelical Christian, we would often engage in “spontaneous” prayer in which each person would simply pray as “the Spirit led them.” We were against rote prayers, feeling that they were “traditions of men” and broke the Lord’s command against vain and repetitious prayer (Matthew 6:7). But over time I started to realize something: our “spontaneous” prayers were awful unoriginal, each sounding like a slightly modified version of the previous prayer.

The same thing occurred with our Sunday worship services: they were intended to be spontaneous and fresh, yet over time they took on a set structure that was much like every other Evangelical service out there.

It appears that other Evangelicals have noticed that today’s Sunday services are still just as predictable as always, as can be seen in this hilarious video:

The problem with condemning repetition in prayer is that it is almost impossible to be truly spontaneous all the time, and it is human nature to feel comfortable with repetition in our lives. Jesus did not condemn repeating prayers, he condemned mindlessly repeating prayers. If you say the Hail Mary without contemplating what you are saying, then you are “babbling like the pagans” (Matthew 6:7). But if you pray the Hail Mary while contemplating the mysteries of our salvation, then your prayer is efficacious. After all, when the apostles asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, he did not say, “just wing it”, but instead gave them a set prayer to say: the Our Father.

I recently read the following advice from a Jesuit about how a Catholic can best interact with Protestants:

The first thing to keep in mind is that…he must look upon [Protestants] with great charity and love them in truth. And he must close his mind to all thoughts that would tend to lesson his affection for them. The second thing to be remembered is the need of gaining their goodwill so that they in turn shall love and think kindly of us. This can be accomplished by dealing with them in a friendly way on those subjects about which we are in agreement and by avoiding those disputed points in which one side might give the impression of lording it over the other. Rapprochement should be established with them in those areas in which there is concord between us rather than in those which tend to point up our mutual differences.

Who was the Jesuit who said this? Perhaps some 1970′s hipster who drank too much of the ecumenical Koolaid?

No, it is the words of Blessed Peter Faber, the first companion of St. Ignatius and cofounder of the Jesuits.

Over the past twenty years I have read countless theology books, the vast majority written by either Catholic or Orthodox scholars. But at times I have also read theological texts by Protestant believers, and although I obviously have some serious disagreements with their fundamental presuppositions, I have found a lot of fine, worthwhile work done by Protestants over the years. Below I have listed a number of Protestant theologians* I have particularly enjoyed.

* Technically, they are not all theologians; some are biblical scholars or historians. But you get the idea of the overall category.

My favorites:

N. T. Wright. Wright is an Anglican bishop who is probably the preeminent “orthodox” biblical scholar alive today. His work on the origins of Christianity is outstanding, and his study of Paul is phenomenal as well.

Jaroslav Pelikan. Originally a Lutheran, near the end of his life Pelikan converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but his magnum opus – the five-volume The Christian Tradition series – was written while he was still Lutheran. Pelikan was more a historian than a theologian, and his study of the development of Christian doctrine in the aforementioned series is the standard for the subject today.

Larry Hurtado. A professor at the University of Edinburgh, Hurtado wrote the monumental work Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, which gives detailed proofs regarding the early worship of Christ among the first Christians.

William Farmer. Farmer converted to Catholicism before he died, but the work he is most known for, The Synoptic Problem, which argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written, was written by him while he was a Methodist. He also co-wrote a number of books with Catholics on ecumenical issues (from the Protestant perspective).

I’m not as well read on the following scholars, but I have enjoyed what I have read nonetheless.

Stanley Hauerwas. Although I am not overly familiar with Hauerwas’ work, the little I have read (including the volume on Matthew in the Brazos Theological Commentary) has been impressive.

Peter Leithart. I’ve mostly just read Leithart’s work in First Things, but his commentary on 1 & 2 Kings for the Brazos Theological Commentary is also well-done. And besides, he has ten kids, so he must be alright.

F.F. Bruce. The late Bruce was one of the premier Evangelical Biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was also one of the best defenders of the reliability of the New Testament texts that have been handed on to us.

Bruce Metzger. Another biblical scholar, Metzger wrote a standard text on the development of the New Testament canon and was also involved in many biblical translations.

R.T. France. I own France’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew for the New International Commentary on the New Testament, and while it definitely had a Protestant flavor, I found the work to be rigorous and well-argued (for example, he acknowledges that the “rock” in Matthew 16 can only be referring to Peter himself, and not simply his faith or his confession).

John Calvin. Not.

Feel free to add any of your own favorites to the comments.

Christianity Today has an interesting article by an Evangelical pastor about the Catholics Come Home program and other Catholic “New Evangelization” efforts. The author, Chris Castaldo (a former Catholic himself) shows a real appreciation for these programs and also gives some useful advice:

Are any Catholics listening? You’d better believe it. The number of organizations “answering the Pope’s call,” as it’s phrased, is impressive. Simply take note of the lawn signs outside of your neighborhood’s local parish advertising programs such as “Alpha” and “Theology on Tap,” or visit the Vatican’s YouTube channel, or tune into Relevant Radio or the EWTN Global Catholic Network, or now surf the web to CatholicsComeHome.org, and you’ll see it. Trenchantly conservative, devout, enterprising, organized, and above all committed to the Church, these Catholics are serious. In them, the spirit of Ignatius of Loyola lives.

I haven’t heard too many proponents of the New Evangelization compare their efforts to the legacy of Loyola and his Society of Jesus; but for me, an armchair church historian, the parallel is striking. Starting with a commitment to supporting and serving the papacy, both endeavor to promote dynamic faith among laypeople and to enrich the structures of public life. The parallel of theological substance, spirituality, innovation, and evangelistic zeal is remarkable. With this connection in mind, I would like to offer two words of caution: one for Catholics and the other for Protestants.

…my encouragement to Catholics pursuing the New Evangelization is to remain positive. While there will necessarily be moments of defining yourself over and against Protestants, don’t let this become your modus operandi.

Protestants must be equally vigilant. For many in our tradition the temptation will be to dismiss or perhaps mock the programs. After all, that’s what we’re supposed to do when we encounter error, right?

Speaking as an evangelical pastor, card-carrying Calvinist, want-to-stand-up-and-salute-when-I-hear-Luther’s-Mighty-Fortress kind of guy, I nonetheless feel secure enough in my Protestant convictions to express appreciation for elements of the Catholics Come Home programs and other New Evangelization efforts. Turning away from sin, commitment to reading Scripture, looking to the Savior, protecting the life of the unborn, serving the poor—these and other such themes are ones that Protestants can affirm, even though we disagree with the institutionalized structure of Catholic authority, the role of the sacraments, and requisite precepts surrounding them. This sort of measured response—consciously gracious while rooted in biblical principles—is more intellectually honest, more missionally compelling, and more genuinely Christian.

I can’t agree enough with Castaldo’s advice to Catholics. It is true that we must distinguish where we differ from Protestants, but that cannot be what defines us. The beauty and truth of the Catholic Faith is so much more than just “anti-Protestantism”. And it is this truth and beauty which will attract people to the Church, and we must proclaim that at every opportunity.

St. Ignatius Loyola, pray for us!

It seems like the past 25 years has produced a rash of conversions to the Catholic Faith. Everyone, apparently, is a convert or is married to a convert. What I find interesting is that, although all the conversion stories have certain similarities, they are all also very different. I never get tired of reading how others have found their way, through God’s grace, to the Catholic Church. What often happens is that God draws people through what they already love, or, as the scholastics would say, “grace perfects nature”.

Fellow blogger, professional pianist and reader of this blog Andy Lee is in the process of becoming Catholic, and he details his journey in three parts:

Returning to Catholicism – the Early Years

Returning to Catholicism – Part II

Returning to Catholicism – Part III

I was especially moved by how the Catholic tradition of beautiful music helped draw him to the Church. Here are some excerpts:

First, as a point of clarification, let me explain what I mean when I say “returning to Catholicism,” as this is both true and untrue.  I was actually baptized as an infant in the Catholic church, though, to my memory, we never attended mass regularly growing up.  So technically speaking, I am returning to the faith into which I was baptized (but never confirmed), but for the most part am seriously coming to Catholicism for the first time.  And yet, despite this, it really does feel to me as though I am returning to Catholicism, even if I was never really there in the first place.

…I had a friend say once that Catholicism is the default faith for music graduates, and I could hardly agree more.  After learning about early music (which is largely the music of the Church), and brushing up on it for doctoral comprehensive exams, I felt like I knew about as most Catholics about what was going on in Mass.  This ties into my appreciation of contemporary Christian music because the more I was exposed to these traditions and the stunning music behind them, the less satisfying the music at our church became.  Again, this was just laying the groundwork for my eventual move to Catholicism, because at the time it simply felt like something that wasn’t clicking right.

…That summer, I also traveled with the Avila choir to Italy, which included a stay in Rome and tours of Vatican City.  I experienced somewhat conflicting feelings concerning Catholicism while I was there.  On one hand, it was hard not to have a strong sense of spirituality entering these beautiful churches, but at the same time I was turned off by the display of wealth and power that I also saw.  We attended several Masses, including a Latin mass in St. Peter’s and a small, intimate Mass at St. Mark’s in Venice (I should add that I studied Latin in college, translating sections of St. Augustine’s and St. Patrick’s writings at different times, so that Latin mass was very moving).  These were amazing experiences, and I once again found myself being drawn to the beauty of the Mass.  Then again, I also found all the statues and veneration of relics to be a little disconcerting.

Immediately after the trip, I probably would have said that I felt a stronger conviction that certain aspects of the Catholic faith were wrong, and that I could never be Catholic.  In hindsight, though, being further exposed to the profound beauty of the Mass in such houses of worship sparked in me an almost irresistible desire to be a part of it on a regular basis.  It was hard participate in the Mass (even if I could not do so fully) and then return to a church were contemporary music and video screens were the norm.

Try to find some time to read all three parts today.

The 2007 return of Francis Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theology Society, to the Catholic Church of his youth caused quite a stir in Evangelical circles. On the Internet, copious amounts of ASCII were spilled either lionizing or vilifying Dr. Beckwith’s decision. Many Evangelicals found themselves on the defensive, as they had to justify their continued “protest” against Rome in the face of many conversions and reversions such as Dr. Beckwith’s.

Two prominent Evangelicals, Norman Giesler and Joshua Betancourt, even wrote a book in response to this phenomenon of Evangelicals becoming Catholic entitled Is Rome the True Church?, describing it as “a major critical analysis of the Roman Catholic Church’s exclusive claim of infallibility.” In the book the authors go into substantial detail explaining why Rome is NOT the true church.

But, in a case of irony that could only originate with God, it appears that co-author Joshua Betancourt has now decided to answer “yes” to the eponymous question; shortly after the book was published, he converted to the Catholic Church.

The general rule in Internet writing is “short is sweet”. Because most people are reading these articles on their computer screen (or even their cell phone screen) it is a good idea to keep articles relatively brief or else you will lose most readers.

I’ve mentioned before that when I started blogging I decided to try to keep my blogs to less than 400 words if possible. I often break that barrier, but I still try to keep all posts under 1,000 words unless I just really can’t shut up. The Internet, generally, isn’t a very conducive medium for long, drawn-out arguments; most people aren’t going to stay that long at one site. Conventional wisdom says that the longer an article is, the less likely it is to be read or commented on.

So what if I told you someone wrote an Internet article that was over 18,000 words and included almost 100 footnotes? And that it had generated, at last count, almost 700 comments? Sounds interesting, even if a bit insane, does it not?

Bryan Cross over at Called to Communion is the author of such audacity and the topic of the article is Solo Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura. Over the past decade or so, Catholic apologists have been very successful showing the weaknesses of a “Bible Alone” approach to authority as it is practiced by Protestants today; common sense alone shows that having the Bible as the only authority is simply illogical. In response, Keith Mathison has crafted a Protestant reply: he has distinguished between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura. The former, which is practiced by most Protestants over the past 150 years, takes the Bible as the only authority. The latter, on the other hand, accepts the Bible as the only infallible authority. True followers of Sola Scriptura, according to Mathison, accept other authorities, such as church councils and creeds, but they accept only Scripture as infallible. Mathison’s argument is a strong one, and it is good to see Protestants recognizing the faults in how their conferees have practiced their faith in the past two centuries.

However, Cross in his article details (in great detail!) why ultimately both Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura end up with the same interpretive authority: oneself. It is only through apostolic succession, argues Cross, that one can escape this conundrum and have a truly independent authority.

I recommend the article highly. I printed it out (25 pages in 10-point type!) and read it at my leisure rather than burn out my eyeballs staring at the computer screen. This article and the ensuing discussion gives me hope that the Internet hasn’t completely made us stupid yet!

A common lament in many churches today is the lack of young people. It seems that many youth today can’t leave faith of their parents fast enough once they are on their own. This is true in Catholic churches and it is especially true in evangelical churches, at least according to this interesting article in the Broken Arrow Ledger entitled “Where have the Young People Gone?” Some excerpts (emphasis added):

“Nationwide polls and denominational reports are showing that the next generation is calling it quits on the traditional church. And it’s not just happening on the nominal fringe; it’s happening at the core of the faith.”

That’s the opening paragraph in a press release promoting a new book, “Already Gone,” by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer, with Todd Hillard…

Two-thirds of young adults who have grown up in evangelical churches are leaving, according to Ham and Beemer.

Nancy Mabry, youth director at St. Stephen’s United Methodist Church, agrees that evangelical churches are losing twenty-somethings, but she credits a reluctance to make any sort of commitment as the underlying cause.

If young people can’t commit to a skating party on Sunday evening until Sunday morning, they’re going to have difficulty making long-term commitments to anything else, Mabry said.

When she was in her 20s, she said “If you didn’t have a fever, you went to church. Some people say they don’t come to church because Sunday is the only day they have to spend with family. Why don’t they spend it with their family in church? Now, church is an option,” Mabry said.

What is the solution? There is a hint of it found later in the article:

There is an exception, however, according to Mabry. Traditional churches that are liturgical churches and smaller evangelical churches seem to be retaining their twenty-something members in greater numbers than larger and mega-churches.

The Rev. John Wilke, senior pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church, has read the book and said he found it to be a fascinating study.

He cited one of Luther’s writings as something for church leaders to consider: “A faith that costs nothing and demands nothing is worth nothing.”

“I think that is where the church is today. I get too many things in the mail from churches that say, ‘Come just the way you are, you don’t have to change,’” Wilke said.

“While God loves you where you are, he expects you to change. We don’t put the fear of God in our churches, we don’t have that respect. We’ve made Jesus our homeboy. He’s not our homeboy, he’s our Saviour.”

Wilke said the only church he knows of that is experiencing growth in the 20-to-29-year old age group is the Greek Orthodox Church.

“The Greek Orthodox Church is a liturgical church. Kids want to return to something different from what they get from the world. If we want to reach these kids again, we are going to have to return to what the early church was doing. We need to raise the bar,” he said.

Read that last part again: a demanding, liturgical Church is actually attracting youth!

Over the past forty years, the goal of many Catholic parishes has been to make it as easy as possible to be a Catholic so that everyone, but especially the youth, would be willing to come. There has been very little preaching about sin and repentance or about the demands the Faith puts upon you. Furthermore, the underlying assumption for many has been to make the celebration of the Mass more “relevant” to the younger generations, so that they will be more attracted to coming. However, this study shows the exact opposite has occurred: kids have rejected the easy way and instead favor churches that are more demanding and more traditionally liturgical.

Youth want to be inspired; they want to be called to something above themselves. A demanding, liturgical church naturally does this and as a result attracts youth without even explicitly trying.