Posted on 07/26/2013 2:04:17 PM PDT by NYer
Sunday, June 21, marked the 90th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial decision. The questions surrounding evolution—meaning, in particular, the origins of humans—still raise large and important questions for how we understand human nature and the doctrine of original sin. But Jason Stellman thinks that the obsession with our physical origins, though understandable, is perhaps theologically off-kilter. Where we've come from biologically is not as important as where we're heading. It's not the beginning of the journey, man—it's the destination. Stellman's The Destiny of the Species (Wipf and Stock, 2013) is a brief, rollicking, and readable apologetic, notable not just for turning the question of origins on its head, but also for pioneering a slightly different route from the path taken by many Catholic converts in their first books.
From Prosecutor to Papist Stellman's own personal story is compelling. Born and raised in Orange County, California, Stellman came to serious faith in the context of the Evangelicalism of the California preacher Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel ministries. He served as a Protestant missionary in both Hungary and Uganda before turning to a more theologically rigorous form of Protestantism: Calvinism. Stellman attended Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California and began ministering in the Presbyterian Church in America, the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in the U.S., planting Exile Presbyterian Church in Woodinville, WA in 2004. Stellman's name came into the limelight when he was chosen to serve as the chief prosecutor in the 2011 heresy trial of fellow Presbyterian minister Peter Leithart, a Calvinist writer and scholar known to readers of journals including First Things and Touchstone. Leithart's views were accused of being in line with a school of Presbyterian thought known as the “Federal Vision,” and he was tried for, among other charges, allegedly failing to distinguish justification and sanctification, divine law and divine grace, and teaching that baptism confers grace and divine adoption. In short, Leithart was on trial for being too Catholic.
Although Stellman's work as prosecutor was acknowledged as solid at the time, Leithart was acquitted by the Northwest Presbytery. In the time after this trial, however, Stellman himself began to question certain historic Protestant beliefs like sola scriptura and sola fide. Through a number of contacts, including the group of formerly Calvinist Catholic apologists centered around the “Called to Communion” (calledtocommunion.com) website, which was founded to foster dialogue with and provide apologetics precisely for Calvinists who suspected the Catholic Church of being right or at least having something to say, Stellman began the journey that ended with his own entrance into the Church on September 23, 2012. Over the last year Stellman has been doing catechesis in a Seattle-area parish, and he now works at Logos Bible Software, developing resource material that will provide an easy way to look at the Scriptures in the light of Patristic and Medieval sources as well as the teachings of the Magisterium.
Apologetics for Everyone Much of Catholic apologetics in English-speaking countries, and increasingly in Latin America, has focused on the differences between Catholics and Protestants. This is not surprising given that large swaths of Evangelical Protestants were baptized as Catholics and left the Church due to the catechetical and spiritual failures of post-conciliar American Catholicism. Sherry Wedell of the Catherine of Siena Institute has written extensively of this phenomenon, which continues to this day—many Catholics who hunger for solid biblical teaching and help in living a life of Christian discipleship seek out elsewhere what they should find in Catholic faith. They find it in the Protestant world where large parts of the Catholic faith have been conserved, especially devotion to Scripture, a serious search for divine intimacy, and the main outlines of Christian morality. Thus Catholic apologetics has been naturally geared toward showing lapsed Catholics and the Protestants they have joined that Catholic faith actually fulfills what they are looking for in a more coherent and comprehensive way. This is an important task—and the importance of it has born great fruit over the last thirty years, not only bringing many serious Protestant pastors, academics, and laity into full communion, but changing the dynamic of Catholic-Protestant relations. During the last two papal conclaves, I have been asked a number of times by Evangelical Protestants about the candidates and what they have to offer. In 2005 one Evangelical Presbyterian friend asked me, “Are we going to get a really good Pope?” I was tempted to answer after the fashion of Tonto when the Lone Ranger asked what chance there was of the duo escaping a wrathful Indian tribe: “Who is this 'we,' white man?” But I didn't, because such a recognition shows how much anti-Catholicism has been tamed in the age of John Paul II, Catholic Answers, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and all the other efforts of apologetics and dialogue.
Stellman certainly has done his part in explaining his own move, writing an essay titled “I Fought the Church, and the Church Won” and giving an in-depth interview on “Called to Communion” as well as engaging in various interesting questions about the real differences between Catholics and Calvinists on his personal blog, “Creed Code Cult”. But refreshingly, Stellman's Destiny of the Species is actually not geared toward Protestants interested in or annoyed by Mary, the Pope, Purgatory, and Indulgences. It is an apologetic for Christianity as a whole after the fashion of Chesterton's Orthodoxy or Lewis's Mere Christianity, geared toward those who might be “spiritual but not religious,” “nones,” lapsed Catholics who have left Christian faith behind altogether or are already practicing some other sort of faith, and Christians of all sorts, whether Catholic or not. What he has produced is an old-fashioned apologetic for everyone.
Back to the Future Stellman's book, written around the time of the 150th anniversary of Darwin's Origin of the Species, arrived not only in time for the 90th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial, but also Pope Francis's first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, with which it bears some striking similarities. Destiny of the Species begins with the premise that while our biological origins are of interest to us, Darwin ultimately “doesn't scratch where we truly itch.” We certainly eat, drink, defecate, breathe, and move in ways that remind us we are animals. But unlike other animals, whose existence is instinctual, man “is not pushed but pulled, not driven but drawn.” Your dog may appreciate a good nap, a beef, and a burgundy, but we have desires for glory, love, and life that has no end. We are, says Stellman, “hard-wired for heaven.” All of the frantic search for someplace else and something new that Tocqueville found in so pure a form in America (and that more recent writers like David Brooks and Wendell Berry have wryly observed or excoriated) is the sign not simply of biological urge, but spiritual need. Stellman uses Chesterton's fine phrase to describe it: divine discontent. We all hunger for a future that is more than we can experience now.
Like Lumen Fidei, Stellman is proposing that human discontent and restlessness should be answered not by quelling them, but by seeking answers to them. Francis answers Nietzsche's dictum that “if you want peace of soul and happiness, then believe, but if you want to be a follower of truth, then seek,” noting that “autonomous reason is not enough to illumine the future”. Stellman observes that for the vast bulk of people, the way to apparent peace and happiness is not belief, but “worldliness”—simply following our biological needs and various emotional passions for things, fame, revenge, and pharmacologically-induced good feelings. The way of belief, according to Stellman, is actually the path to truth and the only way to real peace and happiness. The rest of his book is dedicated to illuminating the truth that, as Pope Francis puts it, “the light of faith is unique, since it is capable of illuminating every aspect of human existence.” It is “a light coming from the future and opening before us vast horizons which guide us beyond our isolated selves towards the breadth of communion.”
The seeker with a pure heart will not choose between belief and truth, but between competing beliefs. Again, like Pope Francis, Stellman emphasizes that our choice is really between true belief and idolatry. Stellman's middle chapters survey the various false gods that humans encounter, offering treatments of the five vanities surveyed in the book of Ecclesiastes, the temptations of a technologically advanced and affluent society, and how the universal acknowledgment of sin's reality usually issues in our identification of it in someone else's life. We all love to confess others' sins while staying silent about our own. Stellman's treatment is generally good in this section, though it must be said that his treatment of the dangers of life in a consumer society tend toward a sort of stereotyped vision of business and markets that might have been better left out or at least balanced by a recognition of the dangers of modern do-gooderism present in non-profit and government work, too. Stellman, whose views are probably left-of-center, occasionally seems as if he's making a brief against politically conservative Christians and not a brief for Christianity. Jibes at those who watch FOX News or take different views on political issues detract from what is solid and permanent in his exposition. This leads to a second difficulty in the book. Stellman uses a variety of pop-culture references to make his points. Many of them, such as his use of The Matrix to illuminate the choice we have to make between simply distracting ourselves and offering ourselves to seek the truth, hit home. Not all of them do. Rock music fans, especially U2 fans, sometimes need to be reminded that song lyrics seldom stand well on their own.
Stellman really excels when he is bringing out the great riches present in Scripture. Again, mirroring Lumen Fidei, Stellman shows how the Decalogue is meant not simply as a veto on naughty human actions, but as a liberation of humans from the passions and idolatries he's been describing and toward a life of spiritual abundance. (I would complain that he describes the Commandments using the Protestant rather than the Catholic numbering, but my own contribution to ecumenical outreach is to say let's do it the way Protestants and Jews do.) Using Job, Stellman shows how the real objection to God's existence, the problem of evil, is met by God's presence, ultimately in the form of Jesus Christ, whose Resurrection and Ascension show us, in a limited way, what we will be. Stellman's final pop-culture flourish is to use the movie Memento, which tells its story alternating between scenes starting in the beginning and moving forward and the end moving backward, as an analogy to the way in which the light of faith works. We know the destiny of the species is assured, but the light of faith, while illuminating all of life, doesn't usually show us more than we need for our own personal immediate steps ahead. “One step enough for me,” in Newman's famous words. Stellman's vision of Christianity answers exactly to the two primary aspects of Chesterton's personal philosophy in Orthodoxy. In the light of the future prepared for us, life is both familiar and unfamiliar, marvelous and unsatisfactory. It is not merely a biological process, but a high adventure. The Destiny of the Species: Man and the Future that Pulls Him
by Jason J. Stellman
Wipf & Stock, 2013
128 pages
In God’s world, there are no popes.
You missed 1/3!
That's a whole other subject, but thanks for bringing it up. This thread is now headed for 1,000 comments.
BTW, people who deny or ignore evolution as creeping pretty close to fact are ideologues with blinders.
Before you all get started, EVOLUTION has NOTHING TO DO with creation, so get over it already.
Nope. Way too creepy for me.
You wrote:
“I merely want to know WHY they ‘believe’ this;”
Every Christian believed it. Not a single one ever expressed any doubt about it that we have even a single record of. The only logical conclusion is that it was true and known to be true.
“since there is NO evidence for it.”
What is the evidence that Matthew wrote a gospel named after him? What is the evidence it is inspired?
He wasn’t teaching a doctrine about it so it is irrelevant to what we’re talking about.
“And there was no Disneyworld yet; either!”
No, there wasn’t. The difference is you got that right but were wrong about Elijah.
“Likewise; I’m sure...”
No, not all. You’ve NEVER said anything correct that I didn’t already know about the Bible. You have stated errors about the Bible or beliefs about the Bible, but I wouldn’t consider that a lesson in any case.
“And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
Elijah was not taken in Heaven - the place of God. He was even still around to write a letter later: 2 Chronicles 21:12-15. The fifty men who were near Elijah (2 Kings 2:7), who witnessed Elijah’s departure, knew he was taken to somewhere else on earth and appropriately searched for him nearby (2 Kings 2:15-18).
Remember, Jesus said: “No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3:13 RSV)
.
“NO, “THE CHURCH” has consistently taught THE WORD.”
Okay, where in the Word does it say Matthew wrote a gospel? Where in the Word does it say Matthew’s gospel is inspired?
“Christians BELIEVE JESUS ALONE and that’s why they have been given the name of HIM/JESUS CHRIST,”
So, according to you, when Christianity was called The Way, and Christians were not yet called Christians, they must not have believed in Jesus alone, right? I mean, according to your logic, that has to be it, right?
And, have you ever looked up the word “Christians”? It was a pejorative. Christians embraced it. Read Acts 11.
Are you saying that the major and minor prophets of the Old Testament are NOT speaking from God-directed instruction?
Not so fast...not every Christian believed in the Assumption of Mary. Nor was it a common belief "from the start". In truth:
Though it was almost universally believed for more than a thousand years, the Bible contains no mention of the assumption of Mary into heaven. The first Church writer to speak of Mary's being taken up into heaven by God is Saint Gregory of Tours (594). Other early sermons on the Feast of Mary's entry into heaven are those of Ps.-Modestus of Jerusalem (ca. 700).
On May 1, 1946, Pope Pius XII, asked all bishops in the world whether they thought this belief in the assumption of Mary into heaven should be defined as a proposition of faith, and whether they with their clergy and people desired the definition. Almost all the bishops replied in the affirmative.
On November 1, 1950, the Feast of All Saints, Pope Pius XII declared as a dogma revealed by God that "Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven".(http://www.wf-f.org/Assumption.html)
WOW! But yet not surprised.
Their ‘papa’ wants his children of the dark to integrate themselves with S&G types. Why not, after all, they are all in ‘satan’s kingdom’.
Since when do catholics care what the WORD says when they can't even understand it? They just 'use' it to post Scripture from. Their authority cames from 'man' and their words. Pay attention, to what your last order is. Make nice nice with homo priests.
As the stomach turns, I'll leave you to 'your man, Francis'.
You wrote:
“Not so fast...not every Christian believed in the Assumption of Mary.”
Yes, they did - unless they were simply ignorant. And the quote you posted in no way gainsays what I said.
“Nor was it a common belief “from the start”.”
Yes, it was. There’s much more evidence for that belief than the reverse.
“Since when do catholics care what the WORD says when they can’t even understand it?”
Can you answer my questions or not? Here they are again:
1) Where in the Word does it say Matthew wrote a gospel?
2) Where in the Word does it say Matthew’s gospel is inspired?
“They just ‘use’ it to post Scripture from. Their authority cames from ‘man’ and their words. Pay attention, to what your last order is. Make nice nice with homo priests.”
That’s not even remotely close to what the pope reportedly said, nor was his comment an order. I guess you have nothing else at this point but to throw in the kitchen sink. After all, you probably can’t answer the questions I asked about Matthew’s gospel.
“As the stomach turns, I’ll leave you to ‘your man, Francis’.”
And I’ll leave you to your seemingly inability to answer my questions. I knew it would end this way from the start. Of course you’ll run away. You have to.
It STILL is -
JESUS THE WORD is THE WAY, JESUS THE WORD is THE TRUTH, JESUS THE WORD is ETERNAL LIFE and no one can go to The Father except through Jesus/THE WORD.
BELIEVING ON JESUS means believing THE WORD.
And it's The BELIEVER'S final authority.
I can answer it but choose not to because I will not be apart of you not going to God and asking Him and for proof. Why do you turn to man for answers - GO TO GOD!
If you are serious, HE will know it, and you will get an answer; if you aren't, He knows that, also, and there will not be answer.
The books of the TaNa"KH consist of three levels: the Torah, the Nevi'im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings or Hagiographa).
The third of these categories were written under Ruach HaQodesh ("holy spirit," or Divine inspiration). This is the level that chrstianity assumes all the holy books were written under, yet it is the lowest of the three levels in the TaNa"KH.
The second of the three levels (the books of the Nevi'im) are actually a level above Divine inspiration. They are records of actual prophetic visions from G-d.
This brings us to the Torah, which was not written by anyone under Divine inspiration at all. It was entirely written by G-d Himself 974 generations before the Creation (according to a mystical tradition). G-d is entirely the author of the Torah. It was then dictated to Moses letter-for-letter, and Moses wrote it down at G-d's dictation. The Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) is therefore the highest and most direct communication man has ever received from A-mighty G-d. It is the only Scripture that has never been canonized by a human authority, because no human is competent to do so. It is entirely the Word of G-d, even though there are traditions that imply a level of interplay between G-d and Moses during its transcription.
This is why the Torah is the Supreme Revelation which judges all others and is judged by none. No book claiming any higher status than the Torah has been or ever will be accepted. It is what chrstians call the "logos," the blueprint of the universe and which preceded it.
The Nevi'im and Ketuvim, on the other hand, are in the TaNa"KH because the 'Anshei HaKenesset HaGedolah canonized them and ordered they be retained as Scripture by future generations. This canonization was necessary for two reasons. One is that, of course, someone must determine true from false prophecy. One characteristic of true prophecy is that it is in submission to the Torah. The Sages would never have canonized any book that implied the Torah would one day be replaced (G-d forbid!) The other reason is that there were innumerable prophets throughout Biblical history who received genuine prophetic visions from G-d, but not all of them were relevant for all future generations. The 'Anshei HaKenesset HaGedolah was made up of genuine Prophets and Biblical figures like Ezra and Mordecai. G-d used them to establish the Biblical canon just as He used them to compose the prayers in the prayerbook.
Actually, as I understand it, the Nevi'im and Ketuvim were canonized to be read only until the coming of Mashiach, after which they will no longer be relevant. They will still be available, and they will still be totally true, but their purpose as canonized Scripture will have ended because all their prophecies will have been fulfilled by that time. In the Messianic era, only the Torah and the Scroll of Esther will still be retained and read liturgically in the prayer service as they are today. I believe there are some who say the Book of Joshua will also continue to be used in this manner.
Ms. Boatbums, you have no idea how much I appreciate your support the past few days. But the fact remains that our religious beliefs are very different and you are as wrong from my perspective as I am from yours. As a Protestant, you understand the purpose of the Bible to be a readily available and universally comprehensible book so that each and every human being on earth can read it and be "saved." This is not the purpose or understanding of the Bible in Judaism. It is meant for Israel rather than the entire human race (though certainly Divine Providence was behind the spread of the knowledge of the Bible universally). There is no need for "Scottish common sense philosophy" in which "there is no sense but the plain sense." As I believe I posted earlier, every single letter in the Torah is loaded with meaning from G-d, including its name, size, shape, and numerical value. Even the "crowns" attached to the letters in the Sacred Calligraphy and the spaces between the letters are also loaded with meaning.
None of this means that there is any slightest "mistake" (G-d forbid!) in the Bible. I realize all this at first may seem confusing, but what I hope you take away from it is that the Bible is so exalted that "Divine inspiration" as chrstians call it is the very lowest form of Divine guidance used to write the Bible. The Prophets are even higher than Divine inspiration, and the G-d-authored and -dictated Torah is absolutely above them all.
You are welcome to contact me if I have caused you to have questions. I am sorry that you must be very disappointed in me.
At any rate, please note that there is no resemblance whatsoever to the modern liberal rejection of the Holy Torah and the rest of the Bible as a mistake-filled, error-laden book of primitive mythology (G-d forbid!).
“It STILL is -”
No, it isn’t. That’s why you knew what I was talking about when I wrote “Christianity.”
But the issue remains the same:
So, according to you, when Christianity was called The Way, and Christians were not yet called Christians, they must not have believed in Jesus alone, right? I mean, according to your logic, that has to be it, right?
And, have you ever looked up the word “Christians”? It was a pejorative. Christians embraced it. Read Acts 11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.