On Confessionalism: Faithful Christian Witness

On Confessionalism: Faithful Christian Witness

Nicholas S. Case

Utrum: Whether it is the case that faithful Christian witness entails confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world.

Videtur: It may seem that faithful Christian witness does not entail confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world. It may also seem that Christian witness should be defined solely as ‘the pious living of one’s life.’ According to this argument, a person may be classified as witnessing to the Christian faith because he or she lives a life of pious devotion, which acts as the presupposed criterion of the Christian life. A common example of the pious life could be a person who gives his or her life to others in service, lives a charitable life of devotion to the Church, and participates in social justice, in God’s preferential option for the poor. According to this argument, if this person has accomplished the appropriate things in his or her life than he or she may be appropriately classified as a witnessing Christian. This belief system is particularly articulated as holding the criterion for faithful witness to Christianity as praxis. This position has been articulated historically by many liberation theologian ( See Gustavo Gutierrez, God-Talk: The Suffering of the Innocent. Also see, Paul Gauthier, The Poor, Jesus, and the Church. Also see, Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Freedom. Also see, Camilo Torres, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Ernesto Cardenal, and Jon Sobrino) . These theologians would argue that God’s preferential commitment for the poor and oppressed demonstrates the power of Christianity as its ability to help bring justice to people who are oppressed. These theologians then argue that the ecclesiastical role is then measurable insofar as its impact on real, pragmatic items, such as how it influences the resistance to oppression. As such, the individual parishioner’s criterion for faithful witness to Christianity that is implemented is one of measurable accomplishments in the restoration of divine justice in practical, tangible form. It is important to remember that this restoration of divine justice is by its very nature empirically based, entirely demonstrative actions of justice accomplished by individuals. The role of the Christian becomes facilitator of God’s justice in a fallen, unjust world. Therefore, any person who participates in the restoration of divine justice in this world (in pragmatic, empirical actions that lead to social justice) may be accurately classified as faithfully witnessing Christianity. As a consequence, any confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world, because it is not an empirical demonstration of the restoration of divine justice in the practical world is not a necessary qualifier for being a faithful witnessing Christian.

Sed Contra: On the other hand, it may seem that the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world is not entailed in faithful witness to Christianity because it is an exclusive doctrinal statement. It may seem that doctrinal statements, such as Christ as Savior, limit the full human expression and discovery of religion. This argument is elucidated by explaining that any creedal or formal doctrine (confession) narrows the number of Christians to an exclusive amount (Sometimes this is elucidated by denominations by the idiom, “No Creed but Christ.” See The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) “The Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)”) . One could also argue that this confession restricts the person’s ability to experience Christianity in his or her own way, one determined by the individual not dictated by a creedal statement. The attempt in this argument is at egalitarianism, tolerance, and inclusiveness for all people regardless of religious expression or education. This position would argue that to place a qualifier on Christianity that is creedal, in this case confessional, would limit Christianity to only those that have been educated in the faith. As such, this argument argues that to narrow faithful Christian witness only to those who confess dogmatic statements is to limit the Church to a very small minority of people in history. This argument argues that if faithful witnessing of Christianity entails the exclusive confession of Christ, the Church is alienating the vast array of the populace and in so doing the Church becomes divisive instead of inclusive. Some holding this position may also argue that people of other religions may be worshipping the Christian God, yet unaware that they do so (See Karl Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian”). As a result, faithful Christianity is adhered to by a different criterion and not by confessionalism, which is by it being dogmatic, exclusive.

Responsio: I answer that one inescapable and necessary qualifier of faithful witness to Christianity is the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world.

Ergo: I reply to the first argument as failing on grounds of its presupposed belief that the criterion of Christianity is limited to a person’s actions. The argument that the qualifier of Christianity is something accomplished by humans, or work based, is contrary to traditional theological discourse. Christianity has traditionally argued that salvation is ontologically grounded in divine grace from God. This divine grace is not given to humanity because of actions a person has accomplished in their life, but rather out of a loving relationship and the merciful nature of God. If grace were given to humanity for actions accomplished, than grace would be secondary to action. If grace is secondary to action than humanity needs not grace, as pious merit-bearing actions were accomplished without it. Thus, this grace becomes a cheap, unnecessary gift from God.
According to St. Augustine , the incarnate Christ was not a natural occurrence; Christ was given to this world through divine intervention. In other words, Christ did not randomly occur, the incarnation was an intentional purposeful action (See St. Augustine’s Letter to Pelagius. Chapter 2). As such, Christ functions as the eternal giver of righteousness and salvation in humanity. Therefore, righteousness and salvation are not contingent on our works, but on the mercy of God and His incarnation. The incarnation being not of natural origin, requires a need on humanity’s part for salvation that is outside of its own natural ability. If humanity is need of salvation outside of itself, then salvation independent of divine grace is impossible. As a consequence, the criterion for faithful witnessing Christianity must include more than works which by itself is only of human hands. Thus, faithful witnessing Christianity must entail the confession of Christ as Savior of all the world.

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may ‘merit’ something from God, in terms of divine justice, but this was contingent only because of the primacy of the gift of divine grace which came first out of the mercy of God. As such, St. Thomas argued that grace was the primary gift from God that allows for merit based works, and for our salvation which was merited through Christ (See St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica. Part III on the Merit of Christ). If divine grace must be primary to enable merit based works as meritorious, and if this divine grace is merited through Christ, then faithful witnessing Christianity must include the confession of Christ as Savior.
The argument for works also fails on scriptural grounds, particularly as demonstrated by Jesus in the story of the Prodigal Son. Jesus specifically demonstrates in this parable that the son which squandered his inheritance is no less loved by the father than the one who stayed home and was obedient. The ramifications of this parable demonstrate that works are not the criterion for justification. As these arguments demonstrate, salvation is not based on works, but given through grace merited through Christ. If the incarnation of Christ was not a natural occurrence, and if humanity was given Christ for our righteousness and salvation, then confessing Christ as Savior of all the world is a qualifier against those who deny the divinity and necessity of Christ. Therefore, in these ways, the confession of Christ as Savior must be a qualifier for Christianity.

I reply to the second argument as failing in its presupposed belief that the statement of Christ as Savior of all the world is uniquely exclusive in its statement. It is true that dogmatic statements express a belief in reality, a statement of what a group of people purport to be truth. As such, Christianity should bare no regret in descriptively and propositionally articulating what it believes to be truth. Any statement about how the real world functions is descriptive, but it also is a statement of rejection (See Christopher Morse’s Not Every Spirit, Via Negativa). If a person argues that the world is round, they are articulating a position that excludes the belief that the world is flat. Are those people then being intolerant to those who believe the world is flat? As rational humans, we constantly make statements about the world in which we live, if I throw something off a building it will fall, if I stand in a busy intersection, a car will hit me. These are all examples of statements of expressing reality, and as a result are excluding that which is not reality. The truth of reality is not contingent on us believing that this reality is true. Just as we as humans differentiate between objects, and make truth statements at a most basic level, we than too may make them on more complex levels as well. All people accomplish defining parameters and denying the beliefs of others, and as such confessing Christ as Savior is not unique in that is rejects other worldviews. Any statement, insofar as it reveals something about reality, is an exclusive statement. As such the fact that confessionalism is exclusive is not unique, but part of what it means to be a rational human. One may charge, isn’t there a difference between truth statements on a basic level than those on an religious level? The single criterion that is being met in both circumstances is one of purporting what reality is. There are obvious different levels of sophistication to reality, but whether we express that reality on a basic level of natural laws, or on a metaphysical level, each statements are attempts to define the parameters of reality, and as such both are exclusive. If all propositional statements are purporting a belief in the parameters of reality, then religious creedal statements are not unique in purporting a belief that is exclusive. Therefore, the confession of Christ as Savior of all the world is not alone in its exclusiveness and as such the argument against it as being uniquely exclusive fails.

The second argument also fails in its presupposed belief that egalitarianism, tolerance and inclusiveness is mediated through non-doctrinal statements. What is the goal of being tolerant if no one ever purported a belief statement? If no one ever made a statement about reality (which is an impossibility, but hypothetically) then there would never be a need for tolerance. The fact is the experience of our world is the opposite, humans do make statements of our world, and as such tolerance is something strived for because those disagreements of reality do exist. If there were not doctrinal statements, or statements purporting reality, then there would be no need for tolerance. If there is a need for tolerance, as the argument suggests, then that demonstrates a presupposed problem of adjudicating propositional statements of reality. In both cases, the second argument defeats its own purpose. Therefore the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world is one necessary, and inescapable qualifier for faithful Christian witness.

Cardinal Dulles

I was first introduced to Cardinal Dulles through a Jesuit Priest/Professor. His death is loss for the entirety of Christ's Church. Living in New York, I will always regret not having gone to hear him lecture. Nevertheless I was especially moved and influenced by his words of the Hereafter and in particular on Hell. I recommend it to you:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=488

I especially find his last paragraph one of the greatest syntheses of salvation I have read. It is a treasure not only to myself, but to many.

Truth vs. Pluralism

I believe in the eternality, universality and Truth that is God. I will demonstrate that this conviction will meet each of the ten criteria laid out in Christopher Morse's "Not Every Spirit." The first of the so-called “Ten C’s” that I will apply is continuity with the apostolic tradition. The three components of my statement are congruent with the apostolic tradition because it operates under both understandings of tradition. First, all three components are ‘handed down’ to Christians from history through the creeds, e.g. The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and the Gregorian Creed of 594. Second all three components demonstrate the freedom of Christianity and point to the eternal salvation that the Christ represents. This freedom is eternal, universal and the truth as found in the Gospels. The second ‘C’ is congruence with scripture. My components in the statement meet the criterion for congruence with scripture as seen in the context of 1 Timothy 2:6 where the author shows the universal redeeming aspect of the Christ, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men.” The third ‘C’ is consistency with worship; these components meet this criterion for two reasons. One, all three components have a history of usage in worship throughout the history of the Church. From St. Augustine to St. Thomas, all Christendom for centuries used liturgies that spoke of the three components of God, e.g. the Liturgy of the Hours. Second all three components of God are ‘preachable,’ as the universality of Christ’s redemption must be preached to all people.
The fourth ‘C’ is catholicity; this criterion is self evident given the components. The universality, eternality and truth of God are catholic, they by definition “extend everywhere, always, and upon all.” The fifth ‘C’ is consonance with experience, which the three components of God adhere to. All Christians experience the universality, eternality, and truth through our awareness of the redemptive power of Christ. Christians separated by class; society, geography, time and space experience together this universal power. This experience solidifies the body of Christ in all ages, giving us the experience of universality, eternality and truth of God. The sixth ‘C’ is conformity with conscience, which the components meet because the “outcome of the statement never leads to anything that is contrary to God’s Word.” This also allows for a freedom of conscience for people to determine their own understanding and even reject the Word of God. Because God is eternal, universal, and the truth all people have the ability to understand God, yet this triad also allows for people to use their conscience to reject God, as we are not born with the knowledge of God, it must be an acquired knowledge. The seventh ‘C’ is consequence, the statement meets this criterion because consequence implies future and the future of all three components is God itself. God is universal, eternal, and the truth and as a logical consequence God will always be universal, eternal and the truth. The material, created world will one day end as all causes except the first cause must at one point reach an end. When this occurs there will only be the triad God, as a consequence this allows for the freedom of humanity on Earth, but the ultimate victory of Christ.
The eighth ‘C’ is cruciality; the triad statement meets this criterion because cruciality implies that the doctrine must be crucial for both the short and long term consequences. The short term and long term cruciality of the statement implies that a Christian must always be both recognizing the eternality of God with knowledge that will be an end, yet also be aware of the present and be attentive to the universality and truth in our current time. This means the Christian must stand for the truth of God both now and forever. The ninth ‘C’ is coherence, the statement meets this criterion because it meets both an ‘internal coherence’ and an ‘external coherence.’ The internal coherence is demonstrated as follows: if God is eternal God must also be universal as whatever is eternal must apply to all time and space and what is universal, because it applies to all time and space, must also be eternal. Truth may be defined as a congruence with ‘the way things really are.’ Because ‘the way things really are’ must by definition be something in all time and space, if it is something that really is, then it adheres to both eternality and universality. The statement is also externally coherent as other disciplines and philosophies rely on the eternality, universality and truth of God. This is most notable in the work of philosophers up to the modern period. However, if a modern and postmodern is to adhere to the principle of the ‘universality of nature’ that all science is predicated on; it is adhering to the triad, namely something eternal, universal and truthful. In this way the statement meets the criterion of coherence. The final and tenth ‘C’ is comprehensiveness, which my statement meets because it meets the standards of dogmatic evaluations and critiques, as well as adds to current global matters. It contains presuppositions that all disciplines share, namely a basic belief in universality. Science, philosophy, psychology, and other fields rely on the universality of their principals; this triad statement gives validity to the vast array of current academic disciplines.

Thus religious pluralism is incongruent with Christianity.