Ads


Peter J. Leithart

view all featured authors »

An Evangelical Case for a Catholic Sensibility

Evangelicals gladly assent to Jean Daniélou’s claim that the mission of the church “continues the mighty works, the mirabilia Dei, recorded in the two Testaments” and agree that “God still accomplishes his mighty works, in the conversion and sanctification of souls.”

Few Evangelicals, though, would make sense of his further claim that “The working of God’s power among us is through the sacraments.” Jesus’ baptism—now, that was a mighty act, as the Father unzipped the heavens and the Spirit fluttered down. If you want to see a mighty act of God today, though, you need to look for blinding lights on Damascus Roads, pilgrims suddenly unburdened, hearts strangely warmed. No self-respecting Evangelical testimony begins with, “God baptized me as an infant. . . .”

I think Scripture supports Daniélou’s position. Which is why I want to make an Evangelical case for the “Catholic” sensibility that discerns the extraordinary behind the veil of the ordinary.

In the middle section of Isaiah, the prophet focuses on the Lord’s promise that Israel will return from exile. Isaiah describes it as a new exodus and plunders Israel’s memories of the first exodus to imagine what’s coming. But the second exodus will not be a mere repetition of the first. It will be so incomparably superior that it will make Israel forget what went before. Throughout the Pentateuch, Moses urges Israel to remember: Remember what I did in Egypt; remember what I did to Pharaoh; remember how I provided for you in the wilderness. Isaiah tells Israel to forget: “Do not call to mind the former things, or ponder things of the past. Behold I do a new thing.”

This is shocking. The first exodus was awe-inspiring: the plagues, the parting of the sea, manna from heaven and miracle-water from the rock, Moses emerging from Sinai’s fiery cloud horned with rays of reflected glory. The mighty works continued into the conquest—Jordan split like the Red Sea, walls crumbled at a trumpet blast, the sun stood still in the sky, and Yahweh stoned Israel’s enemies from heaven.

By comparison, the second exodus is altogether hum-drum. There are no plagues; Cyrus voluntarily lets the people go. Israel does not plunder Persia as she plundered Egypt; Cyrus gives supplies to rebuild the temple. There is no parting of the sea, no miracles in the wilderness, no earth opening to swallow rebels, no Jericho. How can something so ordinary make Israel forget the first exodus?

According to Isaiah, the second exodus is extraordinary for all the reasons we think it ordinary. In the first exodus, the hard-hearted Gentile king has to be beaten to a pulp before he lets Israel go; in the second exodus, the Gentile king is a willing participant in Yahweh’s work. Persia doesn’t have to be plundered because Cyrus is willing to help rebuild Yahweh’s house. The earth never opens to swallow rebels because there are no rebels; Ezra and Nehemiah lead an astonishingly compliant crew of returnees.

Far more than the first, the second exodus fulfills Yahweh’s promise to bless Gentiles through Abraham’s seed. The second exodus fulfills the prophetic hope that the nations will bring their wealth to Zion and that the Lord will inscribe his law on Israel’s heart of flesh. God’s kingdom no longer invades from outside but quietly transforms from within, like leaven in dough.

The apostles announce yet another exodus. Paul says that baptism is the New Testament reality figured in the crossing of the Red Sea. “In the primitive liturgical context of the Paschal vigil,” Daniélou writes, “baptism is recognizably a continuation of the mighty works of God whereby he saved his people in the first Passover, from bondage in Egypt, and in the second Passover delivered his son from the bondage of hell.” This is not a piece of “mere tradition.” It is apostolic sacramental theology.

The “third exodus” of baptism is designed to make us forget the second as the second blotted the memory of the first. Israel escaped from Pharaoh at the Sea; the baptized are rescued from Adamic flesh, the world, and the devil. Cyrus the Persian sponsored the rebuilding of the temple; but the third exodus of baptism knits Jew and Gentile together into one new man with the common vocation to build the house of God. At every baptism, we witness a fulfillment of God’s promise to bring all nations to himself through and as Abraham’s seed. Manna and water from a rock were miracles, but sharing in the body and blood of Jesus through bread and wine is the greater wonder. Every ordinary baptism testifies to the extraordinary faithfulness of a God who makes and keeps promises.

This is not merely an issue of personal experience and piety. The growing friendship of Evangelical Protestants and Catholics is one of the big stories of recent American religious history, yet a focus on doctrine doesn’t capture the deepest things that divide Christians. Differences of ethos and sensibility are harder to identify and discuss, but are of at least equal importance. It will be a sign of extraordinary progress when Evangelicals are awestruck at ordinary water and confess with Catholics (and St. Paul!), “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Peter J. Leithart is on the pastoral staff of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective (Wipf & Stock). His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

10.12.2012 | 1:48pm
Having been raised in a definitively anti-Catholic fundamentalist/evangelical home and denomination I was one who would scoff at the Catholic concept of sacrament and demand to know where it could be found in the Bible. Little did I know that the term "sacrament" from the Latin "sacramentum" actually means "oath". So as a Protestant I was, in effect, rejecting that when I was baptized I entering into an oath with the creator of the universe. This was one little example of how anti-intellectual I was as a Protestant. I had not even looked up the term "sacrament" in Webster's.
10.12.2012 | 3:28pm
Ryan says:
I appreciate the author's sentiment, but would encourage him to take his "catholic" sensibilities a step further by recognizing that not only the church of Rome, but also those of the Lutheran communion and the Orthodox share that astonishment at God's mysterious work through mundane means.
10.12.2012 | 3:46pm
Don Roberto says:
Lovely essay. Thanks. God's gifts come in infinite variety, but He seems to favor whispers over earthquakes. He wants His children—you and I—to help each other; and gives us a variety of tools by which to accomplish this vital work.

Bringing children up in the Faith is easier when we use as many of those tools as we have access to. Baptism is one. Look at Acts 16 for a fairly clear indicaton from scriptura that children should benefit from the graces God has made available to all through "ordinary water."

Conversely, the sin of the parent can harm the child (yeah unto the fourth generation), and those who wait to let the little ones decide for themselves may regret the delay, especially in a world where the messages of the evil one have so many avenues of approach. (Many cartoons have subtle anti-Christian messages, and public schools are aggressively teaching secular humanism as early as kindergarten.) Parents need to follow up on baptism: set a holy example, eschew television and all vulgar/degenerate entertainment, learn your Faith so you can explain it and advocate for it, and pray always. †
10.12.2012 | 4:38pm
David says:
I was raised evangelical. I would be utterly pleased to see my baptists and others embrace the promise we have in the waters of baptism. This will mean, however, that the god of reason interpreting scripture will have to go. Reason is a gift from God but is to be held in subjection to scripture. That is extremely hard to get across to my radical reformed.
10.13.2012 | 3:41am
Peter I join with Don Roberto in thanking your for anohter thoughtful article. David your note is too brief for me to make sense of it. Baptists embrace promises of baptism, maybe not in the ways you want us to?

I also hope and pray catholic/evangelical friendships continue and grow. Even to the point where we can share differences openly with each other and laugh at our selves; and beyond. Not in a bidenesque or condescending manner but with Godly humor.
10.15.2012 | 2:18am
Rick says:
I was baptized in the Holy Spirit in ineffable power one night in an Assemblies of God church when I was a young man. I know you spoke a bit dismissively of "Damascus Road" experiences, but this was truly my Damascus Road experience, and it will live with me to my dying day. There was no priest in the approved apostolic line of succession--just an aged Wyoming cowboy by the name of Star Thomas. It was an altar call after a service, and our small group was caught up in the Spirit, united in a love more powerful, and yet tender, than I had ever experienced, spontaneously singing music of unearthly beauty and harmony. A woman behind me was praying softly in tongues as Thomas, his eyes shimmering with supernatural light, simply said, over and over, "Just love Him...just love Him..." It was one thing to pray for a sign of God's love, and to receive it in some unmistakable "coincidence," as had happened to me before, but it was quite another thing to be ANNIHILATED in that love in intimate, mystical union.

So, the question I would seriously ask is "Was that a sacrament?" Of course, the Catholic Church wouldn't identify it as an official sacrament, but what do you think? Isn't the direct action of God's living Spirit sacramental in nature? After all, even though Paul knew that Christians had been baptized in water, he sometimes inquired if they had been baptized in the Spirit as well. Baptism in "ordinary water" has its proper place, but why stop there? Isn't
it also a sacrament to baptized in divine fire?

Yes, yes, I know that the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation is supposed to be the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but my two sons have both received that sacrament, and while I don't doubt in any way the sincerety of the bishops that administered it, I have seen no sign that my sons had an actual experience comparable to mine.

Perhaps the Catholic Church needs to let the Spirit out of the bottle. How can the Spirit animate a baptism when it is reduced to a ritual under strict, choreographed human control?
10.15.2012 | 9:42pm
FW Ken says:
Rick -

Catholic history is full of experiences just like yours. I'm prone myself to intense religious experience, including one I recognize as a "Baptism in the Holy Spirit". "Feeling the presence of God" comes readily to me, and over time I've concluded that the Lord made this way because He knew the weakness of my soul, prone to wander, fall, and sin. Whereas the Church recognizes experience, she also judges it against the Scripture and Tradition which are the wellspring of her life. What the Church doesn't do is tie salvation or spirituality to those experiences, but rather to loving the Lord and our neighbors, to the virtues, if you will.

With due respect, and without knowing you, I would suggest that the grace your sons received in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation put them into a relationship with God, which will come to fruition in God's way and God's time. It will likely include profound inner experiences, although those experiences may not be as explosive as yours or mine. They grace they get through you (you do know you are a sacrament to them, don't you?) will build on the grace they received through the hands of priests and bishops.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact