Protestantism's Deadliest Enemy
Liberalism will be the death of Protestantism. In fact, it is already largely becoming so. It will not destroy Protestantism in the sense of utterly emptying churches and seminaries - rather, it will destroy Protestantism by slowly replacing the historic Protestant faith (if indeed such a thing can be identified or defined) with liberal-progressive teachings.
Few people will even notice.
In a few generations' time, the transformation will be complete, and no one will really be the wiser for it.
Why?
Because Liberalism - which I am using in the sense of "Modernism," as condemned by Pope St. Pius X - cuts and slashes at the very heart of Protestant theology: the authenticity and reliability of Scripture.
It is my belief that Protestantism has no defense against this attack, because it is the very "sword" of Scripture upon which they usually rely to defend themselves that is being taken away from them and called into question.
Those who call this most basic of principles into question are not usually, on the surface, identifiable as "bad men." They appear to be devout; they appear to be Christian; they appear to be well-studied and learned scholars. They aren't out to destroy Scripture, just to help us understand it better - which means deconstructing Scripture until there is nothing of the Divine left in it.
How do they do this? A few examples are in order.
First, they bring historical criticism into the picture, and impose this method as a kind of grid through which we must study Scripture.
You've probably already heard a few of the arguments ... the first five books of the bible, they say, were not written by Moses. Rather, they were collected and compiled by anonymous editors over a long process of centuries. They say they have been able to identify at least four different sources for the material in the Pentateuch (this is the "Documentary Hypothesis").
The Jahweh Source ("J" source) represents the views of a writer in the southern kingdom of Judah - his writings tend to always place Judah/Jerusalem in a favorable light.
The Elohist Source ("E" source) represents the views of writer in the northern kingdom of Israel, and tends to favor Israel and their customs.
The Priestly Source ("P" source) was written by Levites and focuses more upon priestly concerns - probably not written until after the exile of Judah.
The Deuteronomist Source ("D" source) is the work of yet another author, one more interested in the reforms of Josiah in the 600s BC.
These four sources were drawn together and edited to make them read as one continuous story. So what does that mean?
For starters, it greatly weakens our belief in an inspired and inerrant Scripture. It's easier to believe that God spoke to Moses and inspired him to write 5 books than it is to believe that God was inspiring four distinct sources and an editor, all of whom were incorporating their own political/religious agendas into the texts.
It also means that these texts are not strictly reliable in the area of historical accuracy. The historical facts are skewed, both by the particular viewpoints of the authors involved, and also by the "time-conditioned" understanding of God in those times.
In other words, a lot of the really miraculous stuff you read about in Scripture didn't really happen that way. The ten plagues of Egypt were all natural phenomena, filtered through the religious grid of ancient writers and interpreted as God's miraculous work in defense of His religious darlings.
The same is true of the Gospels, so say these scholars. St. John's Gospel in particular was evidently the work, not of an apostle, but of several of his disciples, compiled and edited by an unknown hand.
Thus, the harsh words of Our Lord against the Jews of His time reflect more of a anti-Jewish sentiment in the early Church than a historically accurate account of Jesus' words and thoughts.
Views like these, whether to lesser or greater degrees, are dominant in almost every single theological seminary and university in the world. Even at reputable, otherwise-conservative Protestant universities, you will hear these things being taught (again, sometimes to a lesser degree) in the bible classes.
A popular distinction being made these days, a distinction that is founded upon the above views but sounds a little less-liberal, is the distinction between the Verbum Dei and the Vox Dei. That is, a difference between the "Word of God" and the "Voice of God."
Thus, some will teach that in the gospel accounts, when a writer records that "Jesus said... " - what follows is usually the thought of Jesus and not His actual words. Here, we are hearing the voice of God, but not necessarily the word of God.
But then, who is to decide which parts of Scripture are actually the inspired Word of God, and which parts are the religiously-filtered thoughts of the human authors? Who is to decide which parts of Scripture are time-conditioned, and which parts teach universal and unchanging truth?
It's much easier to open yourself to these very suggestions once you entertain the idea that the books of Scripture are not the works of the authors traditionally associated with them - the gospels were written by disciples of apostles, drawing on several common bodies of tradition, later edited and retouched by anonymous men; many of St. Paul's letters were actually written by traveling companions of his, for the most part capturing the "thought" of St. Paul; many Old Testament books, such as Job and Esther and Jonah, are extended parables that are not meant to be read as history, but as moral stories.
Again, where does the line stop?
*******************
You may think, if you are a Protestant, that this sort of thing is not really your concern, because it's not prevalent in your circles.
Yes it is.
In fact, you've already probably bought into a few of these arguments, such as ...
1) The Creation account is not historically accurate, and more likely is that Creation happened by a process of theistic evolution
2) Sodom and Gomorrah were struck down for their inhospitality and lack of social justice
3) St. Paul's instructions regarding women and their silence in the assembly, as well as women and the wearing of veils, are time-conditioned instructions that are no longer relevant today
Does any of that sound familiar?
Ok, so how will Protestantism survive this infiltration of Liberal-Modernist scholariship?
You can run to 2 Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God..." - but that's of little help. Even the liberals believe Scripture is inspired, but two problems arise here:
1) "Inspired" means, for them, that certain men were moved by the zeal of their faith (moved by God) to record their theological reflections - it doesn't mean that God spoke directly to them or that He guaranteed inerrancy for their every word. Again, the texts must be deconstructed and separated into what is time-conditioned and what is not
2) Not everything that falls between the front and back flaps of your bible is, properly speaking, "Scripture." For example, John 3:16 is probably inspired Scripture, but St. Paul's instructions about veils are not. Those are time-conditioned elements that are not inspired, but temporary human opinions (valid for that time, but not anymore)
********************
The Protestant is in a major quandry here. Their one source for divine authority is now reduced to a collection of human opinions and deemed inadmissible in the debate.
"Yes, but the bible says ..."
So what? The bible is historically inaccurate and reflects the theological opinions of men who were influenced by their culture and religious climate, some of which are obviously temporary and not universal.
Now what?
In a bizarre twist of irony, the Protestant is left with only one option: pick up the weapon which his forefathers so foolishly cast aside at the Reformation, namely, Sacred Tradition.
The Protestant has no choice here but to rely on the Church's immemorial traditions: that Moses really did write the Pentateuch, that St. John did write his own Gospel as accurate history, that Scripture is inspired and inerrant in every single one of its parts, and - most importantly - that those books which belong to the canon of Scripture have been defined and decreed in several ancient councils.
More on this later ... I know a lot of people want to write off these liberal views as being the wild ideas of revolutionaries, but in the weeks to come, I will start presenting supporting quotes from Protestants who are anything but wild-eyed liberals.
Stay tuned.
Few people will even notice.
In a few generations' time, the transformation will be complete, and no one will really be the wiser for it.
Why?
Because Liberalism - which I am using in the sense of "Modernism," as condemned by Pope St. Pius X - cuts and slashes at the very heart of Protestant theology: the authenticity and reliability of Scripture.
It is my belief that Protestantism has no defense against this attack, because it is the very "sword" of Scripture upon which they usually rely to defend themselves that is being taken away from them and called into question.
Those who call this most basic of principles into question are not usually, on the surface, identifiable as "bad men." They appear to be devout; they appear to be Christian; they appear to be well-studied and learned scholars. They aren't out to destroy Scripture, just to help us understand it better - which means deconstructing Scripture until there is nothing of the Divine left in it.
How do they do this? A few examples are in order.
First, they bring historical criticism into the picture, and impose this method as a kind of grid through which we must study Scripture.
You've probably already heard a few of the arguments ... the first five books of the bible, they say, were not written by Moses. Rather, they were collected and compiled by anonymous editors over a long process of centuries. They say they have been able to identify at least four different sources for the material in the Pentateuch (this is the "Documentary Hypothesis").
The Jahweh Source ("J" source) represents the views of a writer in the southern kingdom of Judah - his writings tend to always place Judah/Jerusalem in a favorable light.
The Elohist Source ("E" source) represents the views of writer in the northern kingdom of Israel, and tends to favor Israel and their customs.
The Priestly Source ("P" source) was written by Levites and focuses more upon priestly concerns - probably not written until after the exile of Judah.
The Deuteronomist Source ("D" source) is the work of yet another author, one more interested in the reforms of Josiah in the 600s BC.
These four sources were drawn together and edited to make them read as one continuous story. So what does that mean?
For starters, it greatly weakens our belief in an inspired and inerrant Scripture. It's easier to believe that God spoke to Moses and inspired him to write 5 books than it is to believe that God was inspiring four distinct sources and an editor, all of whom were incorporating their own political/religious agendas into the texts.
It also means that these texts are not strictly reliable in the area of historical accuracy. The historical facts are skewed, both by the particular viewpoints of the authors involved, and also by the "time-conditioned" understanding of God in those times.
In other words, a lot of the really miraculous stuff you read about in Scripture didn't really happen that way. The ten plagues of Egypt were all natural phenomena, filtered through the religious grid of ancient writers and interpreted as God's miraculous work in defense of His religious darlings.
The same is true of the Gospels, so say these scholars. St. John's Gospel in particular was evidently the work, not of an apostle, but of several of his disciples, compiled and edited by an unknown hand.
Thus, the harsh words of Our Lord against the Jews of His time reflect more of a anti-Jewish sentiment in the early Church than a historically accurate account of Jesus' words and thoughts.
Views like these, whether to lesser or greater degrees, are dominant in almost every single theological seminary and university in the world. Even at reputable, otherwise-conservative Protestant universities, you will hear these things being taught (again, sometimes to a lesser degree) in the bible classes.
A popular distinction being made these days, a distinction that is founded upon the above views but sounds a little less-liberal, is the distinction between the Verbum Dei and the Vox Dei. That is, a difference between the "Word of God" and the "Voice of God."
Thus, some will teach that in the gospel accounts, when a writer records that "Jesus said... " - what follows is usually the thought of Jesus and not His actual words. Here, we are hearing the voice of God, but not necessarily the word of God.
But then, who is to decide which parts of Scripture are actually the inspired Word of God, and which parts are the religiously-filtered thoughts of the human authors? Who is to decide which parts of Scripture are time-conditioned, and which parts teach universal and unchanging truth?
It's much easier to open yourself to these very suggestions once you entertain the idea that the books of Scripture are not the works of the authors traditionally associated with them - the gospels were written by disciples of apostles, drawing on several common bodies of tradition, later edited and retouched by anonymous men; many of St. Paul's letters were actually written by traveling companions of his, for the most part capturing the "thought" of St. Paul; many Old Testament books, such as Job and Esther and Jonah, are extended parables that are not meant to be read as history, but as moral stories.
Again, where does the line stop?
*******************
You may think, if you are a Protestant, that this sort of thing is not really your concern, because it's not prevalent in your circles.
Yes it is.
In fact, you've already probably bought into a few of these arguments, such as ...
1) The Creation account is not historically accurate, and more likely is that Creation happened by a process of theistic evolution
2) Sodom and Gomorrah were struck down for their inhospitality and lack of social justice
3) St. Paul's instructions regarding women and their silence in the assembly, as well as women and the wearing of veils, are time-conditioned instructions that are no longer relevant today
Does any of that sound familiar?
Ok, so how will Protestantism survive this infiltration of Liberal-Modernist scholariship?
You can run to 2 Tim. 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God..." - but that's of little help. Even the liberals believe Scripture is inspired, but two problems arise here:
1) "Inspired" means, for them, that certain men were moved by the zeal of their faith (moved by God) to record their theological reflections - it doesn't mean that God spoke directly to them or that He guaranteed inerrancy for their every word. Again, the texts must be deconstructed and separated into what is time-conditioned and what is not
2) Not everything that falls between the front and back flaps of your bible is, properly speaking, "Scripture." For example, John 3:16 is probably inspired Scripture, but St. Paul's instructions about veils are not. Those are time-conditioned elements that are not inspired, but temporary human opinions (valid for that time, but not anymore)
********************
The Protestant is in a major quandry here. Their one source for divine authority is now reduced to a collection of human opinions and deemed inadmissible in the debate.
"Yes, but the bible says ..."
So what? The bible is historically inaccurate and reflects the theological opinions of men who were influenced by their culture and religious climate, some of which are obviously temporary and not universal.
Now what?
In a bizarre twist of irony, the Protestant is left with only one option: pick up the weapon which his forefathers so foolishly cast aside at the Reformation, namely, Sacred Tradition.
The Protestant has no choice here but to rely on the Church's immemorial traditions: that Moses really did write the Pentateuch, that St. John did write his own Gospel as accurate history, that Scripture is inspired and inerrant in every single one of its parts, and - most importantly - that those books which belong to the canon of Scripture have been defined and decreed in several ancient councils.
More on this later ... I know a lot of people want to write off these liberal views as being the wild ideas of revolutionaries, but in the weeks to come, I will start presenting supporting quotes from Protestants who are anything but wild-eyed liberals.
Stay tuned.
<< Home