The Impossibility of Choosing a Church

When you're Catholic, you generally go to the Catholic church closest to your home. It might not be a perfect church in every sense, and you might go to other Catholic churches in your area when it's convenient, but there isn't often a difficult process involved in choosing a church.

For a Protestant things are very different. Now, there are some people who will say, "Christian is Christian," and pick either the closest church, the church with the most inspiring speaker, the church with the comfiest seats, or the church with the best music. I have to say right out that this is wrong. There are very different things taught in different churches, but since illustrating that sounds like another topic to me, let's assume for now that I'm right: Different things are taught in different churches. You will get a different set of "do's" and a different set of "don't do's." You will be taught different things about who Jesus is, and different things about what he wants from us. You will be presented with different parts of the grace that God offers.

The point is that it matters what a church teaches, and not just how it teaches. If two churches teach equal amounts of truth, go ahead and choose one based on location or music style. Accordingly, from this point, when I say "church," I will generally mean either an independent non-denominational church or an entire collection of churches (or denomination) with a single authoritative body.

So the real problem is, how do I pick a church that teaches the right thing? Of course prayer plays a part, but prayer doesn't happen in a vacuum. We have internal and external influences of all kinds. Thus, I've known many people who have prayerfully considered which church to attend, yet they all ended up in churches that were quite different in their beliefs, from "non-denominational" (which I think of as micro-denominational), to Wesleyan denominational, to liberal Episcopalian, to Seventh Day Adventist.

To illustrate the crux of the problem: Someone I know changed churches because he felt his Pastor had been telling him he had to vote Republican. Just as easily, someone might leave a church for telling them to tithe 10%, or to avoid homosexual acts, or to give up wine and dancing. Some of these people might be right in disagreeing with their Pastor, and others might be wrong. The thing is that ultimately, the Pastor has no authority, and the individual church-goer has all authority. You see, every Pastor is voted into place by either a literal vote of the congregation or by a vote of attendance.

If we think about this it ultimately means that each person is a denomination unto themselves, and must serve as Biblical scholar, arbiter of conflicts, guardian of sacred tradition, etc.

Let's see how this matches up with the Bible. In Acts 15 we can see the Council of Jerusalem, where a binding decision is made by the Church leaders, and it is promulgated throughout the Church. This only works in an authoritative unified Church.

What happens if I looked around and finally found Last Church of Mesa, where everything seemed right, but then all of a sudden the Pastor tells us the church leaders have made a decision? Now we are no longer allowed to drink beer! I know the Bible doesn't tell me I can't have a cold one while enjoying my televised sports program, so I go across the street to Hip Fellows' Fellowship, where I'm pleased to find out about the Beer and Televised Sports Ministry.

Similarly, let's remember what Matthew 18 tells us that Jesus said regarding church discipline. First the individual confronts the one in need of correction, then a small group, and if he still hasn't listened he is brought before the church. If he will not heed the church, he is to be shunned (or excommunicated). Once again, this only works in an authoritative unified Church.

So, what happens when I go back to the Last Church of Mesa (because they do have softer seats), and I start receiving negative remarks regarding my Beer & Sports t-shirt. If I get wind of them even thinking of bringing me before the church, I'll be back in the hard (yet hip) folding chairs at Hip Fellows' before they can even blink.

If we recognize this reality, it means that churches become clubs of like-minded people, and not places where we can go to really have our minds changed, and bring our hearts more in line with the ways of God.

This is why it is in fact impossible to choose a church. If we choose a church we are granting the church authority, and what we have given, we can take away, so the choice is by its nature impermanent. Also, we have no ground, no authority from which to really grant a church authority in the first place. And if we assume we do have authority to go so far as to choose a church, we have indeed become a church unto ourselves.

If we cannot choose a church, a church must be chosen for us. Who has authority to give us a church? Only God. Our choice would then be whether to accept what God has offered us. It must be a Church from God not from men. Certainly it will contain a lot of crazy people, but nonetheless, it did spring from a seed planted by Christ, and its roots still draw upon that source.

What would such a God-given Church look like? As I pointed out above, it should be unified and authoritative. Besides this, it must have history that can be traced to the time of Christ if it is the Church of the Apostles in Acts 15. It should show at least a little semblance of the temple-centered Jewish culture it separated from in the time of the Apostles. It would hopefully still have a strong presence in the Mediterranean, where the Apostles first spread the faith. It would probably be widely available around the world, so we could find it if we looked.

Now it would just be the icing on the cake if it were the largest unified Christian body in the world, if it had figurehead who personified its unity, if it were centered in a city mentioned in the Bible (and it would be ironic if this city was the seat of the fallen empire which once executed our Lord), if it had a Christian hall of fame and centuries of theological work to draw upon for guidance and inspiration, if it were responsible for the original evangelization of most of the Christian world, if it had decided upon the books of the Bible, and if it had painstakingly hand-copied the Scriptures for 1500 years before the printing press (and before all the little denominations which claim the Bible as their base).

If we recognized something incredible like this had happened, what right would we have to choose a church? We could only come to the conclusion that God had given us all a big shiny obvious Church as a gift, and all we could do is accept it.

Flesh and Bones

The Church is the body of Christ.

Occasionally the people of the Church cause her wounds, but her bones are strong, and Christ will always heal her flesh. Let us, for the moment, envision this body as representing two things: Her flesh is her love and compassion, her softness. Her skeleton is the Truth, composed of her infallible teachings, the deposit of the faith, the Scriptures and Tradition.

Now, what happens when a church breaks off from The Catholic Church? It becomes more prone to decay. When it is injured, it is more likely to get an infection, and Christ is less able to heal it, since it is not as fully connected to him.

Thus, Protestant churches, as time passes will often get infections or tumors, and the only response is to excise the damaged tissue. This provides a kind of restoration, but at the same time it leaves scars and sometimes disfigurement.

Let us now look at some of the extreme examples of this disfigurement:

There is a minister named Fred Phelps whose congregation is often seen carrying signs that read, "God hates Gays." This is what happens when an injured body strips the flesh from its bones. We are left with a broken and gruesome skeleton. It keeps fragments of truth (not that God hates gays, but that god disapproves of sin), but it can no longer reach out and touch with healing hands. It only has vicious bony claws.

At the other extreme we find those in the liberal Episcopalian hierarchy. They have abandoned their bones, seeing them as too hard (or intolerant). They have become like a jellyfish stranded on the seashore, a blob of flesh that knows only how to be soft and has lost its real purpose. It takes bones to walk, and bones to reach out your hand to make a difference.

As another illustration, I would like you to imagine a police officer. He is a strong and confident man, trained to enforce the law. He has his uniform, his badge, his gun, and all his other equipment. This is the way a police officer is supposed to be.

Now, a Pastor in one of the conservative Protestant denominations is like this police officer, but without his uniform and his badge, and missing much of his equipment. He is still willing and able to fight crime, but he is seriously hindered.

The liberal Protestant ministers, like the aforementioned Episcopalians, are in a different position. Such a minister may have the uniform and carry much of the equipment, thus appearing from a distance to be a fully equipped officer. But, when you get closer, you see that it is not a police officer in the uniform, it is a great dane.

The Hierarchical Principle

For me, in coming from a Protestant position, one principle unlocked a great deal of the challenges presented by Catholicism. I'm not sure if it has a name, but I will call it "The Hierarchical Principle."

For me, unlocking this principle was key to understanding many things:

Why do Catholics have a Pope and Bishops?
What's with the Marian dogmas?
Why the Praying to Saints?
Why call priests "Father?"
Why have priests?

You see, Protestants tend to simplify things. This makes Protestant doctrine easy to understand and quick to learn (at least the basics). As far as hierarchies go, they like it simple: "There's God, then beneath that is us, then there's the rest of Creation." [Note: I may be leaving out a few levels on both sides, but I think you'll get the point] Catholics see these major levels as well, but we also see levels within each of those categories. A Protestant insists that Jesus has given him direct contact with God. A Catholic agrees, but he also sees the purpose in having contact with everyone on the levels between ourselves and God. Thus, a Catholic may praise Mary as being his superior, but a Protestant, only seeing God as his superior sees this as idolatry.

To sum up the principle, I would first relate a common Catholic statement, "Protestants see things as either/or, where Catholics see things as both/and." This is used for Faith and Works, Scripture and Tradition, prayers to God and Mary, etc.

But for some of these things a hierarchical model is more appropriate: "Catholics see some things as both/and-to-a-lesser-extent." Catholics honor God, and because of God they honor Mary. Catholics believe in the ultimate authority of God, and in the subservient authority of the Bishops.

To help explain how this plays out further, let's see how the principle works with Church Authority: In the Gospels Jesus said, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you [Jn 20:21]," to the Apostles. He also gives a special higher authority to Peter [Matt 16]. Then, after this, the Apostles ordain Bishops to succeed them. This creates a structure something like the following:

God the Father>Jesus>Peter>Apostles>Bishops>Presbyters & Deacons>Laity

Then, after the deaths of the Apostles, and after some clarification on the roles of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons we ended up with the modern structure:

God the Father>Jesus>Pope>Bishops>Priests>Deacons>Laity (divided futher: Parents>Children)

In observing this structure we recognize that each is due honor according to his office. Having an authority other than God does not conflict with God's authority because 1) Its authority is God-given, 2) We recognize that God's authority is higher, and thus, 3) Divine commands outweigh the commands of Bishops etc.

We can look at a similar hierarchy of physical fatherhood:

God, the Ultimate Father>our Ancestors>our Biological Father>Us>our Children

Or in all created and uncreated things:

God>Angels>Man>Animals>Plants>Inanimate Objects

God alone is worthy of all glory and praise, and is the source of all holiness and the ultimate recipient of all praise for holiness. But because God exhibits his holiness through the lives of his saints, we still see a hierarchy of holiness extending down to created beings, for which we give honor and praise:

God>Mary>the Saints in Heaven>the saints on Earth

Understanding that this is the way God works, both in nature and in religion, is a great key to understanding Catholicism. Understanding this, we realize it is not only acceptable to honor Mary, or to honor our father and mother, but it is indeed right, and is God's will. God enjoys sharing his things with his creation, he shares his love, his authority, his supernatural gifts, and even his praise. We are just required to make sure that the greatest honor is given to God.

For one, this would mean that if our priest tells us to do something which we well know to be contrary to God's law, we must object. We must also avoid trying to play people lower on the hierarchy against God, like we would if we said something silly like, "Mary, God has not helped me in my efforts as a thief, but you are far kinder, so please help me steal a car." That would be idolatrous, insulting to God's loving nature, and gravely sinful.

Name that Bishop

I'm working on another stab at a letter to try to provoke interest in what the Catholic Church has to say. Let me know what you think.

Dear Friend,

I have been trying to think of whether there was one simple thing that hit me, and made me realize that there might be something to the claims of the Catholic Church. I was not persuaded by arguments unless I saw evidence to back them up. I know that reading the Catholic point of view on interpreting various parts of the scriptures was key, but there is no one verse that makes all the difference, so this cannot be narrowed down enough for one letter. Then, recently, I reread one of the things that struck me. It is a letter by a well respected bishop.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the facts; those regarding this bishop, and others. I am, after all, human, and am capable of self-deception. And after all, all Americans "know" instinctively that the Catholic Church MUST be wrong, don't they? We "know" that submission to authority is just wrong, we "know" the Catholic Church was incomparably cruel and oppressive in the middle ages, we "know" that the superstitious Catholic Church tried to suppress real Christians, we "know" the Catholic Church hates the Bible, we "know" that Roman inventions crept into the Church after a few hundred years, and that there was no Pope until Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church.

But do we really know these things, or is this just what we have been led to believe? Examine with me this (somewhat long) set of quotes from the bishop's letter:

"For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death."

"Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." [Matthew 19:12] Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty."

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

The first two paragraphs could well have been any traditional Christian. But what about the next two paragraphs?

Is this bishop not a Catholic bishop? He asserts that the Eucharist (or Communion) is the flesh of Christ (in another translation, "the self-same body..."), the very flesh that the Father "raised up." He insists that the believer follows his bishop. He calls the true church "the catholic church." These are peculiarly Catholic things. Other churches have bishops, but they would not ascribe this kind of power to them, and other churches do not teach that Communion is the flesh of Jesus Christ.

Who was this bishop? When did he live? Was he from 1500 AD? 1000 AD?

What shocked me was that this quote was from the Epistle to Smyrnaeans, written by Ignatius, fourth bishop of Antioch, around 113 AD. He was martyred during the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, who reigned from 98-117 AD. That means he wrote this within 25 years of the death of the Apostle John. He was neither obscure, nor a heretic. He was well respected in the early Church. As you see from the quote, he was someone who fought early heresies, here attacking Docetism, the belief that Jesus was not truly human (thus denying the reality of his death and resurrection).

Further reading of such early Christians supports the idea that there were only two kinds of Christians: Those who were united to their bishops and carried peculiarly Catholic beliefs, and those dissidents (heretics) who denied some fundamental aspect of Christian doctrine (and thus weren't truly Christian at all).

Now it seems to me that there are a few ways to view this information. One is the conspiracy theory view: The reason we only have the writings of Catholics and heretics during the early Church is because the Catholic Church destroyed the records of the Protestant-like True Christians (Mormons, Muslims, and other groups rely even more heavily on this theory, saying that even the Bible was altered). But if this were the case, then why are so many gnostic writings and other documents which conflict with Catholic teaching still in existence? Why were only the Protestant documents destroyed? Why would God not preserve some record of this True Church?

A second Protestant view goes something like this: The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for some time, but over time they grew further and further away from the truth, so eventually God had to inspire the reformers to set the truth of the scriptures free again. Of course this view doesn't hold up as well if the modern Catholic Church holds doctrines compatible with the early Christian views, and Protestants deny the beliefs of these early Christians.

Another way to view the information is simpler: The Catholic Church is the same Church as that of the early Christians. It has certainly grown, as Christ said it would, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed[...]. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."[Matt 13:31-32] This Church is still united, and orthodoxy can still be found reliably by listening to her bishops.

Of course this would not have been enough to convince me the Catholic Church was right. I have not sought here to answer every question about the Church. But on the off chance that early church history is not covered up by conspiracy, but is exactly how it seems, should we not give the Catholic Church some consideration? Should we not be moved by the possibility that our Lord Jesus Christ established a visible Church which the Holy Spirit uses to guide us, even if that church is composed of humans who have often committed horrible sins? Or should we be like those who disdained Christ for eating with the tax collectors?

With this example in mind, doesn't it seem likely that what we "know" about the Catholic Church is wrong? Couldn't these things be like the things that secular modernists "know" about Christianity? They just "know" Christians hate everyone else and want everyone to go to hell, they "know" there's no such thing as miracles, they "know" we hate science, and that somehow science disproves religion, and they "know" that morality is relative.

Perhaps it is different to think we know about something, and to actually know it.