Pensees: Gibson’s “gospel” still powerless, but his apology is good

I found your site from Sharper Iron. This whole episode has me confused. Please accept my apologies if I am taking your post way off point too much. I am a layman and have no seminary training and am studying things on my own. Some in Christianity say that God has a special place for the Jews and for Israel and that they are God’s chosen people. Many of these people also believe in the rapture where Christ comes back. If I understand it correctly, it’s mainly charismatics who believe this. Baptists, on the other hand, don’t believe the Jews are God’s chosen people and Israel as a country means absolutely nothing because the church has replaced Israel. Baptists also by in large think prophecy already took place and that the rapture is a curious myth. Christians who have a certain respect for Jews and the nation of Israel because they believe they are God’s chosen people are looked down upon. I think the perjorative term is “dispy” if I’m not mistaken. But now that Mel Gibson has made these comments now all the Baptists are suddenly on the side of the Jews??

I’m not trying to be funny or caustic, but what is the Baptist position? Are the Jews really responsible for all the problems in the world like the replacement theology people think, or are the “dispys” really correct? Like I said, I’m still studying the issue for myself and haven’t come to any firm conclusions. I would like to think it’s an issue that Christians can “debate but not divide over”, as the saying goes.

“[T]he heart of Roman Catholicism has always been anti-Semite”?

I wonder how one would verify or disprove that statement.

What would critics say about the “heart of Protestantism” or the “heart of Fundamentalism”? They’d observe that Martin Luther was a Jew-hater of the first order, and they’d say they find his bile running throughout the movement. It’s often under the surface, they’d say—like the perennial racism—but every once in a while it bubbles up: Just like Mel Gibson gets drunk every once in a while and lets his true colors show, so Christian fundamentalism shows itself in something like the KKK. Little pockets of Judophilia, local accidents of doctrinal eccentricities like Dispensationalism, can’t overrule or even mask the prevailing anti-Semitism.

That’s the sort of thing they’d say. Don’t like it? Don’t think it’s fair or right? Me, neither.

DGus,

I think you know this stuff better than I do and are merely playing devil’s advocate, but I’ll play along.

It is true that Luther was anti-Semite. There’s no denying that. It is also true that Protestants and Baptists and Fundamentalists have all had paroxysms of hateful racism and anti-Semitism. However, the big difference is that the sinful racism of Protestantism is in spite of its system of thought (theology), not because of or fostered by its system of thought (theology).

I think the answer is theological. Fundamentally, most Protestants instinctively believe that GOD killed Jesus, not the Jews. Most Evangelicals throughout history believe that Jesus died for His elect, and most Evangelicals reject the “plan B” notion that, though it may not be specifically taught by dispensationalists, is embraced by the average John-Doe Dispy. While semi-pelagian may plague Evangelical and Protestant minds, Evangelical and Protestant theology does not hinge on pelagian thinking. While Evangelicals and Protestants have and do produce from among them evil anti-semitism on occasion, they at least do not have a creedal base for their aberrant views. They cannot be a good Protestants or Evangelicals and be anti-Semite if they understand their theology even though they are not part of the “little pockets of Judaphilia, local accidents of doctrinal eccentricities like Dispensationalism” (very eloquent, btw ;-)).. On the other hand, it is theologically possible, as I understand it, to be a good Roman Catholic and be anti-Semite. My hunch is that you can speak better to this than I.

Fire away.

As to your dig at Dispensationalists, I won’t take the bait. I don’t care to state publicly how sympathetic I am to your frustrations.

Of course, as you realize, I don’t believe that Protestant Christianity is anti-Semitic (even though a few notable Prots, starting with Luther, have been). By the same token, however, I don’t think Roman Catholicism is anti-Semitic (though notables have been); and actually the charge vicariously offends me. I don’t understand how semi-pelagianism yields anti-Semitism (or yields a special susceptibility to anti-Semisitism, or whatever). Can you connect the dots for me?

Sure. The beauty of the blog is that it will make me either defend what I say, retract, or explain. I’ll shall try in as few of words as possible to explain.

I have a fair enough exposure to Catholic theology and have interacted enough with Catholics to think that it is safe to say that they really do not believe that in their sins they vicariously partook of the murder of the God-Man along with the locals of Jerusalem 2000 years ago though they might officially deny that. By contrast, however,they do believe that they vicariously participate in His suffering every time they take the Mass. And that is official. I have heard enough of their exhortations and read enough of their literature to be confident of this: they urge the communicants to enter into the reality of the crucifixion and to experience it as tangibly as possible. Thus, the ubiquitous crucifix. In a bizarre sense, they are victims of the Jews everytime they take Mass.

I grant that this is subjective, but we all know the long-term pyschological ramifications of systems of thought that have warped our thinking in myriad other fields of thought. Even as you imply, maybe Dispensationalists are blindly inclined to “Judophilia” (obsessed bias) due to a system of thought that has tainted their common sense and disconfigured a proper sense of justice. Many American Christians automatically and unthinkingly give Israel the benefit of the doubt, a carte blanche, just because Israel is Israel. They would be more tolerant of Israel than God ever was or is. But I digress.

The point that I’m trying to make is that the way Roman Catholics think about the Cross becomes a hotbed for anti-Jew sentiments. The way they naturally think about mankind is conducive to anti-semitism and compatible with their doctrine. Disregard “official dogma.” More specifically, anti-Jew sentiments are consistent with their theology.

As to the “notable Protestants,” the only one you specifically named is Luther, but I would argue that Luther was essentially a protesting Roman Cathollic that protested his way right out of the Church but never was fully bled of medieval RC ideas. (That’s no excuse for Luther. It is an embarrassment to read his words about Jews). And, other “protestants” too easily fall into the broad category of “non-Catholic,” so I maintain that anti-semitism is not consistent with reformed theology when - here’s the big deal to me - that theology has been imbibed into the human spirit.

However, you can imbibe Roman Catholic theology as Mel Gibson has and still be anti-Jew without being inconsistent. In vino veritas.

As to pelagianism:

Although most of the Roman Catholics that I know who understand theology insist that the Church repudiates Pelagianism of all sorts (and technically I think they are right), at the center of their theology is the notion that man is fundamentally good, or at least capable of good choices. The fact that a Council in the 500s (if I recall correctly) denounced Pelagianism bears little consequence on the fact that men outside of Christ are instinctively pelagian. Consequently, the Roman Catholic notion of justification and sanctification hinges on a pelagian (or semi-pelagian) frame of mind whether or not it is official dogma. It is pyschological, I think.

I’m about as clear as mud on this, I know, but I really do not think that they think men would actually kill Jesus. Only a cursed, sub-human race would do such an atrocity to the Son of God.

Compound that with the irrefutable evidence of history that Popes, as vicars of Christ, took public, anti-Semitic stances, and you have what I believe to be a theological ground for anti-semitism. Luther was violently anti-Jew. True. But Luther never claimed to be, nor was claimed to be by Protestants, as a “vicar of Christ.” The claim to vicarship of Christ is a theological statement. The actions and the attitudes of the “vicars,” therefore, have theological impetus.

I’m not prepared to say whether their was any ex cathedra pronouncements that were specifically “anti-Jew.” And good Catholics will remind us that official dogma from the Church through the “Vicar of Christ” is only that which comes ex cathedra. Fine. They have all kinds of loopholes.

But, in the end, I will maintain that the age-old aphorism, in vino veritas, proved true in the Mel Gibson tragedy. I have always maintained that he was the purist.

He imbibed alcohol, and thus imbued, spilled out his deepest feelings, though perhaps sub-consious. He imbibed the theology and psyche of the Roman Catholic theology, and thus imbued he is showing the world by his commendable devotion and regrettable deviance the reality of his theology.

I admire him as much as I pity him.

Maybe I fail to affirm too many presuppositions of your blog, so that my comments are more of an interruption than a contribution. If so, feel free to just say so and get on with your actual intentions, and no offense will be taken. However, assuming a reply from me is appropriate–-

I appreciate your connecting the dots, and I think I understand the gist of your argument, but it fails to satisfy me. Without even examining its actual merits, I simply observe that the same argument would teach us to expect that Catholics would be biased against Romans, who were the ones who actually issued Jesus’ death warrant and executed him. But RCs don’t have such a bias. Moreover, the common incidence of anti-Semitism among both RCs and Prots requires you to say that the anti-Semitic Prots are so because of their failure to really understand their Prot theology—and makes you declare Martin Luther a non-Protestant. The data must be forced into the Procrustean conclusion. Again, even without exploring the merits of your argument, we see that it takes us to such an odd place that I am skeptical of it at the start.

You think that anti-Semitism is caused or encouraged by Pelagianism. You say (rightly, I think) that fallen man tends toward Pelagianism as a sort of theological default position—and yet you blame the RCC as if it had invented Pelagianism rather than fighting it (and semi-Pelagianism) to the death (as it did in the controversies over Original Sin). That Council you have in mind is the Second Council of Orange, whose canons the Prot reformers also much admired:

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/290/Council_of_Orange_on_Grace.html?PHPSESSID=aa8f552
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm

(The RCC is still very loyal to Orange 2 today. Read the canons and puzzle why. Heck—read Trent, for that matter, which leans on Orange 2. Are the RC theologians just morons who can’t read? Or is it possible that we have misunderstood their position? If it’s true that Pelagianism (or semi-P) is a sort of human default, is it possible that our anecdotal perceptions of semi-P in Catholics we meet is the result not of bad RC theology but of defective hearers in the RC pews? Walk down the street and ask the first 10 or 20 “Baptists” or “Presbyterians” you run into how a person gets to heaven, and I’ll bet you a dollar 7 out of ten will say something about trying to be a good person. Does this prove what REAL Baptist or Pres theology is? Or does it just prove the persistence and resilience of human error. I’ll bet that more than once you’ve had someone attend your church for years and then surprise you by saying, “I never really understood about grace until today.” We don’t hear until God gives us ears to hear.)

I believe you are right that we should see ourselves as sharing in responsibility for Jesus’ death, because of our sin, although that is a proposition for which I can’t think of Scripture proofs right offhand. Maybe you can. Maybe simply teaching about how He bore our sins and was punished for them? “He was wounded for our transgressions …”?

On the other hand, I hope it IS true, as you say, that RCs “vicariously participate in [Jesus’] suffering”. I hope it’s true for Prots as well. The NT Christian is “crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20; Rom. 6:6), bears and partakes in His sufferings (2 Cor. 1:5; Gal. 6:17; 1 Pet. 4:13), and even makes up what is lacking in His afflictions (Col. 1:24). We are to identify with His sufferings in the most intimate manner possible. “With his stripes we are healed.” It’s hard for me to believe that someone who engages in such identification with Jesus’ sufferings would then bear resentment toward the Jews because he blamed them for Jesus’ death. We could construct a syllogism that would yield that result, but in fact such resentment would crumble under the experience of actually getting a glimpse of the crucified Christ.

FYI, THE PASSION begins with a quotation of Isaiah 53:5-6.

Your statement that THE PASSION is a cinematic crucifix is a fair one, but I don’t see that as a negative thing. I often wear a crucifix. I have a crucifix in my house. I understand (though I disagree with) a true iconoclasm that eschews all images. But something tells me that you are NOT an iconoclast–-that you do have a cross in your church, pictures of Jesus (including the crucifixion) in your Sunday School literature, and your wife’s photo in your wallet. But maybe this is a different and additional subject best put off to another day.

God bless you as you emphasize grace. I would de-emphasize the charges of anti-Semitism.

I’m reading a book called “The Righteous” written by the British historian Sir Martin Gilbert which chronicles many stories of the non-Jewish people who intervened during the Holocaust to save Jews who were running for their lives.

One of the stories is about a young Jewish man in the Ukraine in 1942 who stayed at first with a Catholic family temporarily as most of the other Jews in his area were slaughtered. After awhile, the Catholic family grew very apprehensive and he began to think about where to turn for help next. He says, “I realized that I must find people who are humanitarian by nature and by convictions. Where were such people? Who were they?”

The man recalled watching small groups of Baptists meet in the forest and seeing them baptize in the river and hearing their singing. He knew his grandfather had called the Baptists he’d known “righteous men.” He remembered a Baptist housemaid for “her peace of mind and her love for the Jews” so he decided to find a Baptist family to ask to help him. This young man met two other friendly people in his search for the Baptists. Finally, he met a Ukrainian peasant who was Baptist and asked him for help.

“Together we entered his house and I understood instantly that I had met a wonderful person. ‘God brought an important guest to our house,’ he said to his wife. ‘We should thank God for this blessing.’ They kneeled down and I heard a wonderful prayer coming out of their pure and simple hearts, not written in a single prayer book. I heard a song addressed to God, thanking God for the opoortunity to meet a son of Israel in these crazy days. They asked God to help those who managed to stay alive hiding in the fields and in the woods. Was it a dream? Was it possible that such people still existed in this world?”

The Jewish man continues in his story of how the couple fed him dinner. “Before the meal, the master of the house read a chapter from the Bible. Here it is, I thought, this is the big secret. It is this eternal book that raised their morality to such unbelievable heights. It is this very book that filled their hearts with love for the Jews. After the meal, I started to talk with them. ‘Look, I, too, am a Jew,’ he said. I was shocked. In what world were we? ‘I am a Jew in spirit,’ he continued. ‘This encounter with you gives me more food for more thought and confirms the words of the prophets that the remnants of the Jews will be saved.’”

The story relates how the Baptists in that town had to move the Jewish man from house to house because of their own scrutiny and persecution by their Russian Orthodox neighbors. The man’s story is filled with amazement at the love shown to him by these Baptist peasants and at their extensive knowledge of and reverance for the Word of God.

It seemed appropriate to this subject to post this story. Whatever these peasants’ theology, they were known for their love of others and for their love of the Word of God. That is a heritage to cling to and a goal to strive for.

Just a word to defend the “dispys”: There is nothing in dispensationalism that should actually produce Judophilia. Actually, it sees no present place, theologically speaking, for the apostate government which is called Israel today. Israel has been set aside (Rom 11). It is only a misguided populist vision of the end times that assumed that 1948 triggered something on God’s “prophetic calendar”—the kind that sells books, etc.

Also, believing that Jesus Christ made a genuine offer of the kingdom that was rejected is not a “Plan B” scenario any more than what happened in the Garden of Eden (since Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world).

So, please leave us poor, dimwitted dispensationalists out of this!:)

LOL. So, I probably should squelch the rumor that your seminary is making the Left Behind Series required reading, heh?

But, Dave, I think that you would have to admit that what is officially taught and what is popularly caught are sometimes two very different things. That is what I was trying to convey when I said

Most Evangelicals throughout history believe that Jesus died for His elect, and most Evangelicals reject the “plan B” notion that, though it may not be specifically taught by dispensationalists, is embraced by the average John-Doe Dispy.

I agree with you on 1948. But I find it interesting that 1948 has had an impact even on some Amill reformed guys that I know. They are inclined to acknowledge possibilities concerning national Israel that seem incompatible with their airtight system…

And, by the way, I don’t think you are dimwitted. I have already officially declared you to have more intelligence in your nail clippings than I have in my entire body. That’s quite an honor coming from a blog named “Pensees.”

Seriously, thanks for the appropriate defense of “dispys.”

One more question:

You blame the RCC for Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism. Do you give the RCC the credit for his ability to make a confession with such “commendable … thoroughness”?

I don’t have any problem giving the RCC credit for such a commendable and thorough public confession. Since confession (private) is part of one of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church (included in the Sacrament of Reconciliation), I would expect as good a Roman Catholic as Mel Gibson to not only be sincere, but to know how to make a good public confession.

Confession of anykind anywhere is too often a forgotten element of the Christian life in Evangelical circles.

Hello. trpp2 [url=http://www.trahnu3.com] trpp3[/url] Thanks