Return to Rome - Beckwith

I finished reading "Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic." It tells the story of the President of the Evangelical Theological Society who resigned when he decided to return to a full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Francis Beckwith initially planned to wait till he finished his term as President of the ETS. However, his plan got a kick in the pants when his nephew asked Francis to become his sponsor for his confirmation. In order to be a sponsor, Francis had to be a full Catholic, which he understood to mean in his case, he had to return to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which he had been contemplating for a while, but which he speeded because of his nephew's request.

Beckwith, a professor at Baylor, grew up a Catholic, but left in his teens. He relates in the book how he became an evangelical in his later teens, with many ties to Maranatha ministries, but also eventually attending attending Fordham, a Jesuit college where he received a doctorate. He later taught at Whittier College and Trinity International University before settling at Baylor.

Beckwith relates how many of his evangelical friends think he became a traitor, though some remain friends. I am an evangelical who doesn't think he is a traitor. I think of Catholicism as a branch of Christianity, much as Walter Martin did. Though many pressured him, as an expert on cults, he refused to declare Roman Catholicism as a cult. Though there are differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestants (including non-denominational churches who are usually Protestant, though they claim to be neutral), I tend to think they have much more in agreement than they disagree, especially since they agree on all points in Nicene Creed, which I have touched on before in this blog.

I was baptized a Roman Catholic in infancy, took First Communion, was confirmed, and participated as an alter boy, before departing as a Catholic in my early teens. I was saved as an evangelical in my late teens, so there is much I can relate to in Beckwith's story. Though I initially tended to reject my Catholic heritage for some time, I am reconnecting with it in my later life, and tending to find the differences are not as great as I once thought, especially in light of the Joint Declaration on Justification, and some of the documents issued by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I do not mean to minimize the differences that still exist, but to put them in their context.

First of all, I am Christian, regardless of the denominational differences. I would rather focus on the similarities and unities, especially on the basis of something like the Nicene Creed, rather than focus on what I consider the minor differences, relative to all to what all the branches agree on in something like the Nicene Creed. I do not agree with everything in Beckwith's book, which I might describe in another post in this blog.

However, I hope to do what I can in my brief life to promote a Historic Christianity that brings unity to Body of Christ based on an orthodox faith based on doctrines expressed in the Apostolic and Nicene Creed based on the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the Church Fathers.

The Bridge Over the River Kwai

I recently finished reading The Bridge Over the River Kwai by Piere Boulle. I decided to read the book because I have enjoyed the film by the same name directed by David Lean. I usually read the book that forms the basis for a film after watching the film. I find when I read the book first, and then watch the film, I am usually disappointed. However, if I see the film first, and then read the book, with all the extra details, I enjoy that much better.

Part of the enjoyment is to see how the film differs from the book. I don't think a filmaker has to slavishly follow a book. They are two different mediums. What works well in a book sometimes doesn't work that well in a film. In addition, as an artist, the filmaker has the freedom to make his own choices.

So, for example, one major difference between the book and film - in the book, the bridge was not blown up. The screenwriters and David Lean felt this wouldn't work as well on film, so they decided to have the bridge blown up spectaularly.

Another example - in the book, Shears is British and the leader of the commando group (No. 1). In the film, Shears is an American (played by William Holden), and is not in charge of the group, except briefly while Warden is too injured to command. Probably the filmmakers needed a well-known American actor to guarantee box office success, and so a part was rewritten for an American role. The role was enhanced by having Shears escape from Kwai prison camp, which never happened in the book.

Some get mad that the filmaker has deviated from the book. However, Boule deviated from history in order to write a good fiction book, though some history underlies the story. The Japanese did build a death railway through Burma. Of the Western prisoner of war who worked on it, most were French, including Boule himself for a time until he escaped. Nicholson and the other officers at the camp were mostly drawn from French officers Boule knew. The conditions of those who worked on the railway were much worse than depicted in the book or the film.

A bridge was built over the River Mae Klong, not the River Kwai. (This was an honest mistake by Boule.) After the film, many tourists came to Thailand looking for the bridge over the River Kwai. To fix the problem, the Thai government renamed the Mae Klong River so the tourists could find the Bridge over the River Kwai (though it is called the River Kwae).

Nicene Creed - Part 3

The third part of the Nicene Creed deals with the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Council of 325 did not include this section which was added by the Council at Constantinople in 381, which also modified the rest of the original creed as set forth at Nicene in 325. Therefore, the complete Nicene Creed is sometimes called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. (There was also a small addition in the 6th Century, which I will discuss in a later post.) As in the first part, and the second part, I have broken down the Creed line by line, and placed a one or two word summary next to it of the doctrine that line expounds on.

THE NICENE CREED - Part 3 - Pneumatology

WE BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE - Trinity - The Holy Spirit

WHO PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON - Double Procession

WHO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON IS WORSHIPPED AND GLORIFIED - Worship of the Holy Spirit as God

WHO HAS SPOKEN THROUGH THE HOLY PROPHETS - Inspiration of Scripture

WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH - The Universal Church - Apostolic Teaching (Ecclesiology)

WE ACKNOWLEDGE ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS - Efficacy of Baptism - Sins Forgiven

WE LOOK FOR THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD - Resurrection of the Dead (Eschatology)

AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME - The New Heavens and Earth

Again, in a few short statements, the Nicene Creed sets forth the essential nature and work of the Holy Spirit, and includes a few brief statements about the Church and the end times, which all orthodox churces affirm.

Back to Part 2.

Start at Part 1.

Nicene Creed - Part 2

The second part of the Nicene Creed deals with the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, and thus expounds on Christology - the study of the person of Jesus Christ. As in the first part, I have broken down the Creed line by line, and placed a one or two word summary next to it of the doctrine that line expounds on.

THE NICENE CREED - Part 2 - Christology

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,- Deity of Christ

the only Son of God - Trinity - Son

eternally begotten of the Father, - Christ the Eternal Son

God from God, Light from Light - In Relation to the Father

true God from true God, - Fully God

begotten, not made, - Not Part of Creation

of one Being with the Father - One in Essence (Substance)

through him all things were made. - Word (Logos) Creation

For us and for our salvation - Salvation (Soterology) - Personal

he came down from heaven, - Descension From Heaven

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary - The Incarnation and The Virgin Birth

and became truly human. - Humanity of Christ

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate - Crucifixion - Historical

he suffered death and was buried. - Actual Death & Burial

On the third day he rose again - Resurrection

in accordance with the Scriptures; - Prophetic Fulfillment

he ascended into heaven - Ascension

and is seated at the right hand of the Father. - Authority and Lordship of Christ

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, - The Return of Christ - Final Judgment (Eschatology)

and his kingdom will have no end. - Kingdom of God

Again, in a few short succinct statements, the Nicene Creed sets forth the words and works of Jesus Christ, and covers the essential doctrines all orthodox churches assert about such matters as His deity and humanity, the virgin birth, His eternal nature, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, His return, and the Final Judgment.

On to Part 3 (which focuses on the role of the Holy Spirit)

Back to Part 1

Nicene Creed Part 1

The first part of the Nicene Creed deals with God the Father, and can be thought of dealing with Theology properly (Theos - God / ology - the study of). I have broken down the Creed line by line, and placed next to it a summary of what point of doctrine that line succintly summarizes.

THE NICENE CREED - Part 1 - Theology

WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, - Monotheism

THE FATHER, THE ALMIGHTY - Trinity - Father - Omnipotent

MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH - Creation/Creator

OF ALL THAT IS, SEEN AND UNSEEN - Unified Creation

In a few short statements, the Nicene Creed proclaims the One God created everything, whether seen or unsee, declares him to be omnipotent, and introduces the Trinity by focusing initally on the Father.

On to Part 2 (focus on the Son, Jesus Christ)

On to Part 3 (focus on the Holy Spirit)

Back to Intro

Nicene Creed - Intro

I think the Nicene Creed contains one of the greatest statements in Christianity. Whether Protestant or Catholic, it represents a statement they all agree with, and is often stated aloud in church service in both traditions, or at least acknowledged as a statement of basic Christian beliefs. More importantly, each statement coincides with one of the great doctrines of the Historic Christianity.

In the next few blogs, I am going to post the words of Nicene Creed, and relate them to the doctrines they correspond to in Historic Christianity.

Before doing that, I want to give a brief background to it.
Though some attribute the Creed to Emperor Constantine's efforts, Constantine was urged to call the Council by bishops concerned by the teachings of Arius, who affirmed that even though Jesus was divine, God created him, and so he was less than the Father. The bishops by an overwhelming vote, not only asserted that Jesus was God, but that he existed eternally with the Father. Later, at a 2nd Council, they also asserted that the Holy Spirit was also God, and the Creed we have today is usually a combination of both Councils of bishops.

The Creed forms the basis for an explicit statement of the Trinity. While some assert this doctrine was only formed at these Councils, the New Testament in many passages implies the Trinity, which was

acknowledged in the Church way before the Nicene Council. The Trinity answers many deep philosophical questions and problems the ancients asked. The Trinity, as well as the Nicene Creed, was not developed by the Church fathers to respond to these questions. Rather, as they studied these questions, and as they studied Scripture, they realized that the Scripture had the answer to the problems of unity and diversity explored in ancient philosophy, and so they excitedly put forward the Trinity as answer to these problems.

Go on and study Part 1 of the Nicene Creed.

Tom Sawyer

I recently finished reading The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. While Samuel Clemens (under the pen name Mark Twain) wrote a better novel in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, I understand Tom Sawyer remains his best-selling book. Twain presents an idylic boyhood which he drew from his time growing up in Hannibal, Missouri (called St. Petersburg, Missouri in the novel). He drew many of the charachters from his boyhood memories of his friends and community. Twain presents such an idylic American portrait, that Disneyland (as well as Disney World) maintain Tom Sawyer Island as a major attraction. Twain called it a hymn to a glorious summer of adventure.

Tom Sawyer also represents Twain's first attempt at a major novel. His previous books were collections or compilations of articles, correspondences, or fictional works he had prepared as a newspaper man that usually were first published in newspapers.

More importantly, Twain wrote, in the language ordinary Americans spoke in. He carefully studied how people spoke, and labored to write it that way. He made it into an artform. This was a departure from American literature to that point, which was still influenced by European literature, and so didn't try to write the way Americans spoke, especially those who didn't speak well.

Tom's character matures in the novel. At the start, he cons the other boys into doing his work to whitewash the fence. Toward the end, he acts selflessly in the cave to save both him and Becky. At the start he admires his carefree friend Huckeberry Finn. At the end, he is encouraging Huck to become civilized, even though he does it by promising that is the only way Huck can join Tom's robber band (one senses Tom is not really going to form a true robber band.) In many ways, I enjoyed this novel, which points the way to Twain's better work in Huckleberry Finn.

The Cultural Christian

In my last blog, I spoke about enjoying enjoying our culture, as well as other cultures. However, Christianity has not just enjoyed culture, but has a rich tradition of studying culture, analyzing it, participating in it, and transforming culture as well.

In the City of God, St. Augustine discusses and analyzes the surrounding Roman culture. While critical of that culture, you can also see his love and appreciation of that culture, as well as the wealth of knowledge he had accumulated about it. He laid out a vision that would transform the culture and set the tone for Western Civilization for the next thousand years, which largely continues to this day.

For the longest time in Western Civilization, Christians were the leaders in the arts, literature, science, theater, music, as well as agriculture, manufacturing, technology, business, economics, government and law. Christians were not content to just participate in such fields, they sought to excel and transform them as they applied a creativity, freedom, and reason, which they believed flowed from being made in the image of God. They saw Christianity as applying to all of life and its many aspects rather than to only the spiritual, or only to the private life, or only to a limited part of the culture.

Besides participating and leading in the culture, they also supported not only the arts (as patrons), but they further supported the effort to lead and transform in all the aspects of culture. They founded the universities to further this effort, as well as to promote, inculcate, and disperse a broad education. Though not perfect, and at times flawed, they overall transformed Western Civilization into a success and a position of leadership in many of these areas throughout the world. They saw as their goal nothing less than to bring the entire world before the Lamb of God and thus establish the City of God, as St. Augustine wrote about, and which Van Eyck portrayed in his Ghent Altarpiece, also known as The Lamb of God. (Opened panel view below.)

Ghent Altarpiece, Jon Von Eyck

Unfortunately, there is a trend these days for Christians to withdraw and retreat from the general culture, and instead focus on a sub-culture that is distinctly thought of as Christian. While the goal may be to protect Christians, the effect is to abandon large parts of our culture to those who hold a different perspective, which only tends to reinforce the view that those parts of our culture should be shunned. This view leads to a Christianity that is crippled and weak, shrinking and withering, in contrast to the robust and full-orbed, healthy and advancing Christian tradition of the past, which we have inherited. I hope we can regain the momentum in a full-orbed Historic Christianity that engages with our culture by not only by enjoying it, studying it, and analyzing it, but also by participating in it and transforming it.

Enjoying God & Culture

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks: What is the chief end of man? In a magnificent answer, it states: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Most Christians may understand the part about glorifying God (and I could devote an entire blog to that part alone). However, many Christians probably have not given much though about enjoying God forever.

Though there is a lot I could discuss about enjoying God forever, I believe a good part of it includes appreciating the creativity and works of mankind who are made in the image of God. As Christians, we should appreciate the culture we live in, as well as other cultures.

To expand on this, we should enjoy and appreciate painting, sculpture, theater, film, literature, technology, music, architecture, law, politics, government, economics, agriculture, manufacturing, and all other elements that make up not only our culture, but other cultures as well. This should not only include what is sometimes called the high arts, but the full range of human creativity and work.

Image of God

Genesis informs us that God created male and female human beings "in the image of God." (Gen. 1:27.) The question immediately arises - what is the image of God? This question has been the subject of much discussion for centuries, usually under the phrase - Imago Dei - which is Latin for the image of God.

Is the Imago Dei to be understood in a physical sense? In other words, does it have anything at all to do with the way we physically look? There is a temptation to think of the image of God in this manner. The Mormons assert the image of God is physical since they believe God was once a man as we are who progressed into an exalted being. Thus, as God's children, we are of the same species as God is. Initially, many think of the Imago Dei in this manner, in a physical sense of the phrase.

However, Jesus informs us that God is spirit. (John 4:24.) Historic Christianity teaches that there is no physical shape or form of God that constitutes his image, since God is all or only spirit and is invisible. This is part of why the Second Commandment forbids making a graven image (an idol, a likeness) of God. (Exodus 20:4.)

Instead, the Imago Dei mainly comprises of the following characteristics which are found in all human beings:

• The capacity to reason;
• The capacity to love;
• The capacity for creativity;
• The capacity for language;
• The capacity for holiness;
• An innate knowledge of immortality;
• The capacity for making free will decisions;
• An innate sense and knowledge of morality;
• A capacity for self-transcendence;
• A capacity for self-consciousness;
• A consciousness of the existence of God;
• An understanding of the distinction between God and non-God

The Imago Dei distinguishes human beings from the animals. While animals can seem to exhibit some of the characteristics listed above, this often results from our wanting to attribute these characteristics to them.

So what does the image of God look like? The Bible points us to Jesus Christ, who is the "image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15.) The fullness of God dwells in Christ. (Colossians 1:19.) Jesus was the most fully human that ever walked on this earth, and is the best representative of what the Imago Dei means. However, every person on earth reflects the Imago Dei, whether they do good or evil, they cannot escape from it. We should therefore appreciate every person we come across as one made in the image of God.