Response to Carl Trueman's "Better than Chick Lit II"

August 1, 2007

In May of this year (2007), Carl Trueman wrote "Thoughts on the Return to Rome of Professor Beckwith". I wrote a reply to Trueman in the combox of this article. (A cleaned up version of my reply can be found here.) My reply was mentioned in Reformed News here.

Now Trueman has written another article on the Catholic Church titled "Better than Chick Lit II". Below is my response.

First I am again grateful for the amiable tone and charitable stance with which Trueman addresses what he sees are the fundamental points separating Protestants from the Catholic Church. He first addresses the issue of tradition and authority.

Trueman describes T1 as "tradition based upon scripture as the sole source of revelation", and T2 as "tradition based upon two sources, namely, scripture and an oral tradition mediated through the magisterium of the Church". He says that the Protestant conception of tradition is T1, and that the Catholic conception of tradition is "T1 plus T2". I should point out that the notion of T1 plus T2 does not make sense, being either redundant or contradictory. But he is right that the Catholic conception of tradition includes both Scripture and the oral tradition. But the debate between the T1 conception of tradition and the T2 conception of tradition is only secondary, not the fundamental point of disagreement, for this debate hangs on a more fundamental matter. Therefore the more fundamental matter should be the focus of discussion. That more fundamental matter is the authority of the magisterium. If there is an authoritative magisterium, and that magisterium teaches that T2 is the doctrine of the Church, then T2 is the doctrine of the Church. So speaking and writing as though there is some debate between the T1 and T2 conceptions of tradition presumes either that the magisterium has not spoken to this issue, or that the magisterium has no authority, or that there is no magisterium. None of those three presumptions is neutral with respect to Catholicism. So casting the debate as between T1 and T2 begs the question, by including implicitly an anti-Catholic presumption.

Trueman adds the following comment:

Undergirding Protestant notions of scripture is a belief in the basic perspicuity of the Christian message.

He recognizes that the "canonical and hermeneutical chaos of modern Protestant biblical studies and systematic theology, along with the moral and epistemological and ecclesiological anarchy which it brings in its wake, is inherently unstable from an ecclesiastical perspective." But strangely, Trueman offers no defense of the perspicuity of Scripture in light of these facts. He just moves on to a discussion of other religions. Once in a discussion with a graduate student I was defending a decision I had made. She knew that I was struggling with the effects of my decision. Her response was one question: "How's that working out for you?" She said it without any expectation of a response from me. It was both a question and an instant refutation, for I was reduced to silence, as she knew I would be, because we both knew well that my decision was not working out for me at all. When Protestants affirm the perspicuity of Scripture as a basis for ecclesial unity, that same line comes into my head, said in the same manner: "How's that working out for you?"

Concerning the Catholic Church's treatment of other religions, Trueman writes:

Yet even the most historically sensitive reading of confessional Protestant traditions requires us to emphasise the centrality of the Trinity to divine identity and revelation, and to use this as a critical measure by which to judge other religions, such as Islam. For a confessional Protestant, if Allah is one, if Allah has no Son, then Allah is not Jehovah, for Jehovah is not god in general but God the Triune in particular; consequently, there should be no joint worship services with the local Imam, no blurring of the religious boundaries, whatever popular front platforms we might share on moral issues.

Trueman assumes that if a man denies that the God who created all things is three Persons, then necessarily that man is not worshipping the true God falsely, but rather is worshipping a false god. But Trueman gives no defense of this assumption. The notion that the Jews are worshipping a false god, and not the true God falsely, comes very close to the heresy of Marcionism. Social trinitarians who deny that the Son is eternally begotten (as stated in the Creed) and that the Spirit eternally processes, or who deny the ontological unity of the Trinity, are farther from orthodoxy than are Muslims, for monotheism is closer to orthodoxy than is tritheism.

Trueman then writes about our different understanding of the sacraments:

Catholics see grace as coming through sacramental participation in the church; Protestants see grace as coming to them through the promise of the word grasped by faith as it is read and preached.

And our different understanding of justification and salvation:

Catholicism sees justification as a process whereby the righteousness of Christ is imparted to the believer through this sacramental participation; Reformation Protestantism sees the righteousness of Christ as imputed to the believer by grace through faith in Christ. Catholicism understands human nature in terms of substance; Protestantism understands it in terms of relation. Salvation for Catholics thus involves a substantial change; for Protestantism, it involves a change in relation or status.

But the debate between these conceptions of the sacraments, justification and salvation is only secondary, not the fundamental point of disagreement, for this debate hangs on a more fundamental matter, namely, the authority of the magisterium. If there is an authoritative magisterium, and that magisterium teaches the Catholic conception of the sacraments, justification and salvation, then the Catholic conception of the sacraments, justification and salvation is the doctrine of the Church. So talking as if there is some debate between the Protestant conception of sacraments, justification and salvation and the Catholic doctrines concerning justification and salvation, presumes either that the magisterium has not spoken to this issue, or that the magisterium has no authority, or that there is no magisterium. Again, none of those three presumptions is neutral with respect to the truth of Catholicism. So again Trueman begs the question in his presentation of the basis for the divide between Catholics and Protestants, by including in it implicitly an anti-Catholic presumption.

Trueman then writes:

One could go further: the continuing centrality of the mass, the persistence of Catholic catechetical belief in purgatory, and the Tridentine emphasis on human ability vis-a-vis grace, all show that there remains fundamental differences between Rome and Geneva on this issue.

Geneva? I can't help but wonder what or who exactly is in Geneva that makes it the representative of all Protestants? Concerning the notion of assurance, Trueman writes:

For the Catholic, assurance of God’s favour is a non-issue; indeed, assurance can be a dangerously subversive thing, encouraging moral laxity and poor churchmanship. For the Protestant, however, it is absolutely crucial: only as we are assured of God’s favour can we understand his holiness without despairing, and do good works – live as Christians! – in a manner which is not servile but rather affiliative and familial.

That is not an accurate description of the Catholic notion of assurance. Catholics are absolutely assured of God's favor in Christ. It is because of our assurance of that favor that we can return to the confessional and to the Eucharist. What Catholics are not assured of, apart from extraordinary revelation, is being decretally elect.

Trueman writes:

If you do not regard the great confessions and catechisms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as being biblical in their teaching on justification, then you should probably do the decent thing and become a Catholic.

In other words, according to Trueman, you should base your decision concerning whether to be a Catholic or a Protestant on your own interpretation of Scripture. But that very notion is itself the essence of Protestantism. We can see that same notion in this quotation from St. Vincent of Lerins concerning approaching Scripture as if there is no magisterium. That is precisely why Tertullian says this. The decision to become Catholic should not be based on whether the Catholic Church teaches in accordance with one's own interpretation of Scripture. It should be based rather on whether the Catholic Church is the institution founded by the incarnate Christ.

Truman continues:

If, however, you value the Protestant tradition on justification, and its concomitant pastoral point, that of the normativity of the individual’s assurance, you may, indeed, you should, appreciate much of what Catholicism and Protestantism share in common, but you should remain at Geneva and not head to Rome.

In short, according to Trueman, if you value a doctrine, then you should worship in an institution that teaches that doctrine. You, the individual, are the determiner of doctrine. If no one is teaching doctrine as you see it, then it follows that you should simply start your own institution that teaches doctrine as you see it. That is precisely the recipe for what Trueman calls "the theological anarchy of modern evangelical thought". The idea expressed here again that Geneva is somehow the headquarters of Protestantism suggests that Trueman does not grasp just how fragmented and individualistic Protestantism is. The only relevance Geneva has to Protestantism is historical.

He concludes:

We share a common Pauline canon and vocabulary, and we share a history of Augustinian conceptualization of issues surrounding matters of grace and salvation, but we can only unite if one, or both, sides abandon cherished beliefs which lie at the heart of our respective theological and ecclesiastical identities.

The disappointing thing about this article is that it never addresses the fundamental point of disagreement, the point on which all the other disagreements rest. We cannot expect to restore full visible unity if we do not address that fundamental point. As long as we address only the secondary issues, that is, only the implications of the fundamental point of disagreement, the division between Catholics and Protestants will remain. We have to focus on that which lies at the very root of the division, the source and fundamental cause of all the rest. And that root and source is the rejection of the sacramentality of magisterial authority. That said, the level of dialogue here is exceedingly better than Chick Lit, and for that we can rejoice. But the dialogue itself still misses the fundamental point, so the dialogue still needs to advance.