Quenching the Spirit

A young woman whose family I have known for years called me for advice. She had just been told by a young man that after long and earnest prayer, after seeking the face of God for days, the Holy Spirit had informed him it was God’s will she form a romantic attachment with him. With little deliberation and equal gravity I informed her she could tell her swain and his Spirit to go jump in the lake, and add a boot in my name to their collective backside with her good riddance.

There was a time I would have been more cautious about contravening the earnestly sought will of God in this way, since I was raised in a tradition that, while not charismatic, gave a good deal of respect to decisions earnestly prayed about--the earnester, the better. There was something arresting, and at times awesome, about the altered state someone could get themselves into by doing it, and the slightly grey but steely-eyed look acquired by the spiritually exercised lent authority to their pronouncements about the opinions of God.

But I am more confident now that the Holy Spirit, while mysterious, infinitely subtle, and often counter-intuitive is for all that no fool. The gabbling of enthusiasts is not his favored means of communication, nor is he a private gentleman. If he has a message for one who speaks for him, it meets what he has already placed in many of his own, and agrees. He is a friend to reason because he invented it, a friend of counsel, because he is eternally in counsel himself (some would even say, and not without reason, that he is Counsel), and a friend to the wisdom of age and experience, for he is the one who has given it, presumably for use toward his ends. (The presence of these virtues in the church virtually eclipses, I believe, the need for much of what is commonly regarded as charismatic gift. Since they are themselves part of the concrete and enduring telos of the Spirit’s work, there is good reason to suspect that the overuse and overvaluation of charismata--which may indeed be from God--is also, in whatever age and in whatever church they appear, a sign of spiritual infantilism.)

So, what should we say to the earnest conviction of this passionate stylite, this slightly haggard, bearded and bug-eyed boy who has spent an earnest week in prayer, ending in the revelation that God’s desires match his own, an infant Christian with a history of bad judgment in his religious associations, proud of an ethnic preference for passion over sterile reason, uninterested in the observations of the young woman’s other counselors--why should he be, since he has achieved a direct word from God--and with another girlfriend in his native country, forsooth?

I suppose we should be pleased that we are not dealing here with the effusions of a bishop, for then reason, counsel, and wisdom might (or might not) have a longer and more arduous task before them in review of his history, passions, and girlfriends back home. But my young friend was very happy for my judgment that this one was, as they say, a “no-brainer.”

Comments

[Ethan C.]

At Wheaton, appeal to the mysterious but emotionally felt will of God was used equally as both a pick-up line and a break-up line. As a pick-up line, it was a way to circumvent the rational reasons against the relationship, as in your young man's case. For break-ups, it was an equally convenient way to avoid having to explain the real reasons for the dissolution.It was so common that we began simply calling it "playing the God card."

Strange how often the Immutable would change His mind, and how often the Impassible would reflect the earthly passions of His interpreter.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Steve,

You crack me up. I like it when academic writing covers up a deftly delivered crotch kick. You and Tony Esolen do that so well. Bill Tighe too. It's an art form that you make look effortless.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I completely agree with SMH about this fellow. I'd just like to note that I think that God *did* show me, in one blessed (unlooked and unprayed for) instance in the Spring of 1986, that I was going to marry my (then) girlfriend. I blurted this out to her *as* I received it. ("You know--we're going to get married.") In retrospect, I think this was for both our benefits, but probably mine more than hers.

(The next clearest instance of God directly communicating with me came upon waking from a dream in the Spring of 2004. I had been shown (in the dream, I guess) that we were one day going to be parents of a girl--despite the rarity after having six boys. Theodora was born in January 2006.)

[smh]

TUAD: Sort of like the guy who fixed a huge machine with a light hammer-tap, then issued a thousand dollar bill for services. When the amount was protested, and an itemization demanded, it was $1 for the tap and $999 for knowing how and where to tap. If I ever get better at this, the tap will be lighter, and what is behind it even larger and heavier.

Mr. Godbold: Far be it from me to say that God doesn't speak to individuals. The air around what you have said here, however, does not look to me like it needs any "clearing."

[Patty Joanna]

When I was in college, I had four roommates, one of whom was drop-dead beautiful. We lost count of the number of young men who had been "given a word from the Holy Spirit" that this lovely woman was to marry them. She was beautiful, but she was not stupid. She told each of them in turn, very sweetly, "What a marvel! I will listen for His voice as I am sure He will let me know, as well." We all thought it was somewhat amusing that these guys were never "told by the Holy Spirit" to marry one of the plain girls.

Remarkably, all five of us, the beautiful and the plain, married, and all the marriages have lasted 25 or more years in Christian homes.

[Rev Dave]

Funny how none of these young men (Patty's post above is a greatexample of selfishness/lust disguised in God's clothing) get a word from the Lord as terrifying and horrible as say, this example: "the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD."

Don't these people know that the people God speaks to directly are most often called to a life of martyrdom in one way or another? If they realized that, I wonder how many of them would so actively seek (or claim to seek) a true "word from the Lord."

[ckgaler]

Ah, yes. . . When I was younger, I traveled in a (charismatic) Christian circle where this sort of thing was known to happen from time to time. Even accepting (and relying on the fact) that God does indeed speak to his sons and daughters, it always bugged the heck out of me, because it was so blatantly manipulative, and even cowardly, trying to do an end run around the work of actually getting to know, and win the affections of, the object of one's admiration.

I only wish that more of the young women had been as astute as Patty's friend; for the most part they lived in fear of who the Lord might tell to marry them this week. . .

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Dear Rev Dave,
You might be right about the life of martyrdom for most people to whom God speaks directly--I don't know if anybody keeps statistics on stuff like that (or if it would even be possible to do so)--but my marriage (at least for the first 18+ years) has really been quite wonderful.

[Bill R]

Suggested riposte: "Really? But I'm CERTAIN the Holy Spirit has been telling me that you are to pursue [here point out a worthy young woman who has been overlooked by all of the randy, but spiritually-impaired, young men]. And you do know that I'm the Lord's Anointed, don't you?"

[Matthias]

It was when I was at the lowest point of my life, going through a personal hell, that I received a clear vision of my future wife (I had not yet met her) and children. The experience gave me the strength to pull out of the situation I was in.

To this day I have not told my wife about it. I don't believe it was given to me to manipulate or impress people. I have simply treasured the memory as a gift that sustains my confidence in God's sovereignty.

[Kamilla]

This is so, so, so very tempting (grins).

I just can't believe it has ever worked. Not the "pick up" line I'd fall for, though once there was a line I thought rather inventive . . .

Kamilla

[Clifford Simon]

Years ago, while I still had a delusionally-high view of "inspirational books" because my well-meaning Christian friends gave me them as gifts "for my growth" - there was a certain book on prayer that I chanced on.

The author, a household-name pastor at a mega-church, says something like this. God told me that I must learn more about prayer. So I went and re-read every passage in the Bible about prayer. This book is the summary of my learning.

But I can find a few descriptions of prayer that he missed.

Namely, the bible paints us a clear picture of how the fool prays. One trait of note: quantity of words.

Of course, Bill Hybels never wrote THAT chapter.

A pastor could do well to teach his congregation, "Don't pray like a fool." Perhaps he fears that if he ever said so, the prayer meetings would suddenly be empty?

[Clifford Simon]

One staff-member at my church knew just what to do in these cases.

"We must be careful to speak about God accurately. Otherwise we use his name in vain. Just the other day, I heard from a young lady in our church that somebody said to her, 'I think it's God's will that I stop seeing you and start seeing someone else...' " began his sermon.

(Neither the lady nor the man were identified by name. In the man's case, I suppose that's reserved for the second offense!)

[bonobo]

(The presence of these virtues in the church virtually eclipses, I believe, the need for much of what is commonly regarded as charismatic gift. Since they are themselves part of the concrete and enduring telos of the Spirit’s work, there is good reason to suspect that the overuse and overvaluation of charismata--which may indeed be from God--is also, in whatever age and in whatever church they appear, a sign of spiritual infantilism.)

"the [little-c church]...whatever church..."

Guys, I'm fed up with this crazy notion of little-c church. The one thing the Holy Spirit clearly did do in "many of his own" was form The Church. "The many" started with the apostles chosen by Christ; their successors (when they do their job) sustain Her. The Church (big C) is the Ark of Salvation, not the little meeting houses that can't agree among themselves. The little-c church ecclesiology is such a dead end for Christianity; it gave us a semi-rationalistic creed (the progenitor of the Enlightenment) that countenanced Erastianism, the Kulturkampf, the contraceptive declension from the 1890s onwards and the Lambeth Conference of 1929, leading directly to Roe v. Wade and similar global sources of the culture of death.

Stop with the little-c church already! That's the message I discern from the Holy Spirit.

[DBP+]

On my first date with my future wife, she took the opportunity during an awkward, nervous pause in conversation to ask "so, am I supposed to be your wife?" What little food I'd actually been able to eat up to that point nearly came right back up in a coughing fit.

She clarified by relating how several friends had had such experiences of Divine dating foreknowledge (she was quite serious). She assumed that’s why I had asked her out in the first place. I sputtered some more and confessed that though I had been in near constant prayer about this date, I hadn't prayed for or about anything of the sort. "I don't know if God would even tell me if I asked," I protested.

Once home from the date, being a very earnest young Christian woman (and attending, at the time, an Assemblies of God church), she immediately prayed for a sign--"laying out a fleece," as it was called in her circle of friends--on whether or not I supposed to be her husband. The fleece came back either wet or dry, whichever one said I was NOT to be her husband.

Troubled by this surprising turn of events, I spent several difficult hours in prayer, primarily seeking to understand why she could hear so clearly and profoundly from God while I could not. That day of anguished prayer turned out to be a very powerful and formative moment for me. It was the clearest and most practical moment of my young life in realizing that through prayer we don't seek to align God's will to our own, but conform ourselves to His.

So blah, blah, blah, married for thirteen years, yadda yadda, four kids...

[Stuart Koehl]

My wife met me in 1973 at a party at GU. Her first impression was, "My God, he's so obnoxious!"

God moves in interesting ways.

[dj]

I met my wife at Stonhenge while stationed at RAF Bentwaters in '86. She was from KC MO and was going to school in the Netherlands. It took me 5 yrs (2 1/2 of dating) to figure out that she was the one. (I'm a slow learner) Part of the delay was the imagined "signs" that I had concerning a relationship that had come to an end with my move to England. It took 5 years to figure out that the true sign had met me in Salisbury those many years before. No young man should be trusted to discern these signs on his own. For her part, she says she knew the night of our first kiss that she was to marry me. Now 16yrs and two boys later she still thinks I can be obnoxious but loves just the same. God does indeed move in interesting ways.

[smh]

You're right, Bonobo, there is only one Church, one faith, one baptism--in case there is any doubt what any of us believes. Every Christian believes it.

And every sectarian is convinced beyond doubt, and has reams of infallible and unanswerable proofs, that the Congregation to which he belongs is It. You have been harping on this for years, and clearly have not made the slightest headway among the two thirds of us who doubt that yours, as great a church as it is, is what it believes itself to be--but we do extend the honest courtesy of calling it a church, thus discerning its vital connection with the True Church. If it has been your intention to draw us closer, you have only tempted us to hate it, a temptation we must fight by the discipline of remembering its virtues every time we read what people like you write. But then again, perhaps your intention has been to damn rather than save us. If so, you have certainly been going about it in the right way.

(I note with some amusement that if the Orthodox are right, what we have from you is the pot calling the kettle black.)

At Touchstone we operate under a truce for which we hope we have the Lord's approval, but would claim no more. Our way of speaking here is formed by the conditions of this truce. You have often given voice to your frustration with this, but you won't be able to change it.

[W. E. Messamore]

When such people claim to be prophets (and that is what this young man was claiming- that he was getting a direct revelation from God, the claim of a prophet) I wonder if they really understand the gravity of such a claim. False prophets were stoned in Biblical times. This is just another symptom of the irreverence and shallowness of our present age. Ah... the profits (oops- oh well) of love.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>False prophets were stoned in Biblical times.<<<

A lot of modern ones are stoned, too. Just not in the same way.

[Margaret]

I remember a swain solemnly announced to my sister that the Lord had told him they were to be married. "Oh yeah?," she retorted. "Well he didn't tell ME."

[Fr. X]

A long-time church friend told me that the Holy Spirit had revealed to her that we were to marry. I informed her, in a delicate manner, that the Lord hadn't so spoken to me, and that I didn't believe he'd told her such a thing.

Two months later, she married another man she'd known only for a few weeks--and asked me to celebrate the wedding!

It came as no surprise when they divorced.

[Joseph Stringer]

"I suppose we should be pleased that we are not dealing here with the effusions of a bishop, for then reason, counsel, and wisdom might (or might not) have a longer and more arduous task before them in review of his history, passions, and girlfriends back home. But my young friend was very happy for my judgment that this one was, as they say, a “no-brainer.” "

Hear! Hear! A gentle, but firm statement of truth about one segment of the church which has lost its way. The whole argument of the Episcopal Church USA is based upon the very same argument that young man used on his intended victim. Why is it that we can see so clearly the foolishness of the young man, and yet still give weight to the argument of a bishop that he is called to leave his wife, live with another man in a homosexual relationship...and STILL be the shephard of a people?

Those who have ears, let them hear.

[labrialumn]

Patty, your roommates response was far more Christian than Mr. Hutchen's. Wise. If it really is God the Holy Spirit, it will be confirmed, and not every young woman who says that God the Holy Spirit has told her something is lying, or is a bad person, just one that needs to grow more. Which we all do. Further, her response (if honest, even if she didn't believe that God -would- tell her that) treats the young man with respect for his devotion to God, yet also teaches him, gently, about private revelation.

Rev, Dave, how on earth do you get statistics about something like that?

(I continue to be amused and disturbed in turns how in blogs like this one, young women are presumed to be immaculately concieved, and young men are presumed to be utterly depraved)

that's ok, Bonobo, many of us are getting fed up with baseless claims for Roman imperial universal ordinary primacy. (non-baseless claims would be interesting, but I've not heard any yet)

Joseph, TEO is claiming public revelation, the young women (and men) are claiming private revelation. The Roman Catholic Church, and many other denominations, have long distinguished between the two.

[labrialumn]

Patty, your roommates response was far more Christian than Mr. Hutchen's. Wise. If it really is God the Holy Spirit, it will be confirmed, and not every young woman who says that God the Holy Spirit has told her something is lying, or is a bad person, just one that needs to grow more. Which we all do. Further, her response (if honest, even if she didn't believe that God -would- tell her that) treats the young man with respect for his devotion to God, yet also teaches him, gently, about private revelation.

Rev, Dave, how on earth do you get statistics about something like that?

(I continue to be amused and disturbed in turns how in blogs like this one, young women are presumed to be immaculately concieved, and young men are presumed to be utterly depraved)

that's ok, Bonobo, many of us are getting fed up with baseless claims for Roman imperial universal ordinary primacy. (non-baseless claims would be interesting, but I've not heard any yet)

Joseph, TEO is claiming public revelation, the young women (and men) are claiming private revelation. The Roman Catholic Church, and many other denominations, have long distinguished between the two.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I continue to be amused and disturbed in turns how in blogs like this one, young women are presumed to be immaculately concieved, and young men are presumed to be utterly depraved.

Just young men who use the "God has given me a word on this" line to pick up girls. Other young men may be far more, or far less depraved.

But then again...maybe God DID tell that Televangelist that I would receive a special anointing if I sent money to his ministry. I mean, none of us should judge, right? Just leave it up to whom the holy spirit convicts alongside that televangelist to send in the buckaroos?

A much more Christian response, yes. The moneylenders just need to have their customers also pray if God would lead them personally to engage in commerce in the temple. Much more Christian than driving them out...

[labrialumn]

Wonders, you are making the assumption that the young man in question really believed that he had heard that from God and wasn't cynically trying to manipulate the girl. That doesn't even begin to mean that he was right, but the assumption of insincerity without evidence isn't appropriate.

[Clifford Simon]

The Christian way to treat "wrongness with sincerity" is to give it the boot it deserves.

The sincerity tells us he didn't INTEND to manipulate the girl. The wrongness tells us that he DID manipulate the girl (despite his intention). So he still must get the boot for manipulating her. Being booted, perhaps he'll realize what he did.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Sorry, Labrialumn, I've got all of zero sympathy. I know the type - heck, I was not that far from being the type a good many years back. Sincere or not, it's manipulative and unmanly, and deserves quite the kick in the pants, period (or perhaps a lash from a whip if we must be Christlike).

[Matthias]

I think Lab. is missing the point: even assuming that a young man believes with complete sincerity that God has told him he is to marry a certain young woman, there is absolutely no possible justification for him telling her that.

The young man's first step should be to confide his vision in his pastor or some other trusted elder. Then, if he remains convinced of the truth of his revelation, he should set about wooing the young woman, confident that God will take care of the ultimate outcome.

There is a difference between being given a revelation and being instructed to share that revelation with others. I believe God gives people revelations about good things that will come to them. I do not believe that God instructs people to share revelations when being believed will materially advantage the person to whom the revelation was given.

[bonobo]

But then again, perhaps your intention has been to damn rather than save us. If so, you have certainly been going about it in the right way.

(I note with some amusement that if the Orthodox are right, what we have from you is the pot calling the kettle black.)

I've only quoted that part of your reply which might be seen to stray from the (perhaps justifiably exasperated) courtesy you have always displayed to me. I really don't intend either to repel by discourtesy (though I freely admit that has happened) or "damn rather than save". I'm sure if you took the sum total of my contributions here the latter very repugnant hypothesis couldn't be inferred.

there is only one Church, one faith, one baptism--in case there is any doubt what any of us believes. Every Christian believes it.

Ultimately, I know this to be the case, among those who "know their stuff". But I think for too many this is lost sight of...private revelation (which I was imitating tongue-in-cheek with my reference to the Holy Spirit) and little-c ecclesiology replaces the great imperative of extending the Kingdom of Heaven which is manifested on Earth in the Church. They further represent an attempt to circumvent the question of authority, which is a fundamental question of our times.

The EO divergence from RC is indeed about authority but it is far less in degree than the divergence with those who see no need for the Church to be apostolic as understood by the framers of the Nicene Creed and their predecessors.

Thanks for engaging on this patiently.

[labrialumn]

If the rule is to give the boot to anyone who is young and immature, or who makes a mistake, well then, some of you definitely deserve the boot that you wish to give another. Why reason, why explain, why teach, when you can simply kick someone. What a novel thought! What an interesting paedagogy that certain of you are advocating!

Would you do the same thing to young women who did the same thing? (it does happen, you know)

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Um, no, I would not. I am rather fond of this thing called "chivalry" - out of favor in the general culture, but rather popular around here actually.

There was a time when I was deep in thought as to whether or not to pursue a young woman. I liked her, she was a fine young lady, and all the signs were there, and I had prayed about it quite a bit. But I confided in a close friend that I didn't want to "rush things".

His response was a veritable kick in the pants. What I was doing, in his words, was "emotional masturbation". That is, I wanted the safety of thinking things might work out, and the pleasure of thinking of what might be, without taking the courage of actually risking her saying no. He was right - it was simple cowardice on my part. And his rebuke stung, and shamed me into action (and she's now my wife and we have three children).

Sometimes the best thing for a man is a good knock upside the head - and it would be my prescription for any young Christian man who approached a young woman that way.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

A slight rewrite to Dr. Hutchens opening paragraph:

"A young pastor whose family I have known for years called me for advice. He had just been told by an influential woman in his congregation that after long and earnest prayer, after seeking the face of God for days, the Holy Spirit had informed her that it was God’s will that women serve as elders in the church. With little deliberation and equal gravity I informed him he could tell his influential parishioner and her Spirit to go jump in the lake, and add a boot in my name to their collective backside with his good riddance."

Quenching the (Egalitarian) Spirit.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

See, TUAD - that was a very egalitarian rewrite. No boots to female backsides.

[Joe Long]

Just stumbled on this...in the "nothing new under the sun" category. Rev. Charles Woodmason, whom I confess to not liking much, was a missionary to the backwoods of South Carolina before the American Revolution. He relates an incident of a "Notable She Saint" among the backwoods folk, who was "highly celebrated for her extraordinary Illuminations, Visions and Communications...."

To her lover she "communicated a Revelations that it was ordained He should caress Her - and He Good Man, was not disobedient to this Heav'nly call" -

But, proving ganders could play this goose game, " -He afterward had a Revelation That it was the Will of God such a Man was to take her to Wife which the Poor unthinking Booby did...little dreaming that He was to Father the Prophets Bastard....You see hereby that Revelations now a days, are not strictly to be depended On -"

[bonobo]

that's ok, Bonobo, many of us are getting fed up with baseless claims for Roman imperial universal ordinary primacy. (non-baseless claims would be interesting, but I've not heard any yet)

Not Roman, silly Labby; Petrine. Not imperial either. Nor baseless: did the first 1500 years or so of the Christian Church just not happen for you, then?

[bonobo]

Not Roman, Labby; Petrine. Not imperial, nor baseless. Did the first 1500 or so years of the Christian Church just not happen for you, then?

[bonobo]

Too late I repented of the "silly"...oh well, I hope I haven't unduly offended.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Not Roman, Labby; Petrine. Not imperial, nor baseless. Did the first 1500 or so years of the Christian Church just not happen for you, then?<<<

To the same extent that the first 1000 years did not happen to you. One can agree that there is indeed a Petrine Ministry without agreeing that it involves either infallibility or immediate, universal ordinary jurisdiction. In fact, there is nothing in the history of the Church of the first millennium that endows the Bishop of Rome with any of those characteristics, so one wonders why a unilateral innovation by one particular Church should be elevated to the level of a "dogma" to be held by those that did not receive it.

[bonobo]

baseless claims for Roman imperial universal ordinary primacy

My attempt to reply to this ridiculous phrase was censored. Both "Roman" and "imperial" are frankly insulting references to what many Christians hold about Petrine primacy.

Do you, Mr. Censor, agree with these insulting terms, then, to the point of brooking no response? Operate under a truce forsooth!

[bonobo]

Hmmmm. I couldn't find the comments I tried to post and clearly (and not for the first time, erroneously) assumed that they had been rejected.

Stuart, I saw your comment referenced but couldn't find it for several days. In any event, however you regard the Petrine primacy, it is inimical to those Christians who reject the "apostolic" description of the Church in the Nicene Creed and earlier.

In effect, what one could call (rather scandalously, for a Catholic, to my mind) "unilateral innovation" could for another be an expression of Divine Providence and a valid development of doctrine in Newman's sense.

There's plenty of evidence in the first 1000 years, not least the high view of Petrine primacy amongst the Fathers of the Church. Is the "rock" of scripture also to be interpreted away? Now that's a private interpretation in my book!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There's plenty of evidence in the first 1000 years, not least the high view of Petrine primacy amongst the Fathers of the Church. Is the "rock" of scripture also to be interpreted away? Now that's a private interpretation in my book!<<<

Been there, done that. Only ONE of the Fathers (Cyril of Jerusalem) explicitly identifies the rock as the person of Peter. The consensus among the Fathers is that the rock is either Christ, or Peter's confession; hence, all who confess as Peter did have "a piece of the rock".

>>>In effect, what one could call (rather scandalously, for a Catholic, to my mind) "unilateral innovation" could for another be an expression of Divine Providence and a valid development of doctrine in Newman's sense.<<<

Hey, I'm a Melkite now--I don't have to hide the fact that I have cojones anymore. The fact is, i stand with my Patriarch on this matter. When the Pope excommunicates Gregorios III, then I will worry, but no sooner. In the meanwhile, I profess regarding the Church of Rome precisely what the undivided Church of the First Millennium did.

[bonobo]

There's something up with the site. Recent comments here have disappeared again. I'm just going to post this in the hope that that will allow me to see them again.

[bonobo]

Curious, that worked.

Stuart, happy to hear you've got a new sub-apellation. Still Catholic, right? Those fine gentlemen (sincerely meant) Dr. Hutchens and Mr. Altena are, too. Of course, it's a matter of definitions. St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Augustine may not have explicitly defined their beliefs in the same way as St. Cyril, but do you doubt that they believed similarly?

I come here to be educated. Give me a reference to a Father who makes out that Christ and not Kepha is the one referred to in his seminal discourse on the matter.

[Stuart Koehl]

Let's start with two who don't mention Matthew 16:17-19 at all, which would be two of the earliest, Clement of Rome and Ignatios of Antioch. Apparently one of Peter's early successors did not consider it particularly germane, and neither did the leading exponent of the monarchical episcopacy in the first century AD. Clement, for one, in his one genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, makes no mention whatsoever of the Roman primacy, nor does he appeal to the Petrine text of Matthew for his authority. Ignatios wrote a letter to the Romans, in which he says simply, "I will not give you commands as Peter and Paul did; they were Apostles, I am a convict".

Of the other early Fathers, Tertullian identifies Peter as the rock on whom the Church is built, but then immediate says that Peter is no greater than John (De praescriptione haereticum, 22.). He views Matthew 16:18 as a promise made to Peter personally, which does not transfer to his successors (De Pudicitia, 21).

Cyprian of Carthage, in contrast, identifies Jesus' words to Peter being made on behalf of the corporate body of the Disciples, and though them the entire episcopate (De unitatis ecclesia, 4)

Origen, the leading exegete of the Ante-Nicene period, was the leading proponent of the view that the rock was Peter's profession of faith. His view was particularly influential among the Antiochian school and its great proponents, Theodore of Mopsuetia and John Chrysostom. They have numerous commentaries and homilies in which the "petra" is not the person of Peter, but Peter's profound truth--"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".

This view, in fact, prevailed among many of the Fathers, including Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa.

Somewhere or other I have an article that includes a statistical survey of the Fathers, indicating how many identified the rock as Peter himself; how many as Peter's profession of faith; and how many as Christ. When I find it, I will present it. But I think I already posted the results here in the past, so you can try searching the archive. For those of us in the Eastern Churches, this is not news.

[bonobo]

once again, apologies. It appears I can only see recent comments on this thread ater I post anew.

[bonobo]

So no explicit reference to Christ Himself as the Rock? I'm deeply disappointed. I guess we ought to distinguish between Peter the man (who can hold an office) and Peter's profession of faith (which, being an evanescent event cannot bear quite so much weight)?

The lack of overarching claims in the letter of Clement would not constitute contrary evidence, nor would some of the highly questionable reversions to classical Greek rather than Koine to transgenderize Kepha to a rock-like profession of faith or whatever exegesis proved convenient.

In any event I'm not so much into proof-texting except for the pleasure of seeing exegetes tie themselves in knots to avoid the inconveniently obvious. How many times is Peter referred to in the Gospel and then in first place? Was it because of his noted professions of faith? Who was the successor of St. John, being so worthy of note? Look to your own area of remarkable expertise, history. When you disregard the (very) special scriptural pleading, its workings-out suggest additional support for the concept of Petrine primacy.

Or was the Mucovite Metropolitan on to something with the concept of Moscow as the Third Rome, after Constantinople paled into insignificance? Methinks it was a political aping of the First, which continued on regardless...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>o no explicit reference to Christ Himself as the Rock? <<<

No, Monkey Man, I said I had a bunch, but did not have the time to find them at that moment. But here, have some now:

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians

[Chapter 9] The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.

Saint Justin Martyr, Second Apology

[Chapter 113] For I have shown that Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in parables a Stone and a Rock.

[Chapter 114] And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.

hepherd of Hermas:

[Parable 9, Chapter 12] First of all, sir, I said, explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate? This rock, he answered, and this gate are the Son of God.

Tertullian: An Answer to the Jews

[Chapter 9] For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world aforetime into the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with a knife of rock (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock; therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus.'

Tertullian: Five Books Against Marcion

[Book 4, Chapter 13] Again, He changes the name of Simon to Peter, inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence. I omit the rest of the passage. Therefore He would fain impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was suggested by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was, I suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived from no figurative description of Himself.

[Book 5, Chapter 5] The very stumbling-block which he declares Christ to be to the Jews, points unmistakeably to the Creator's prophecy respecting Him, when by Isaiah He says: Behold I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. This rock or stone is Christ. This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still.

Cyprian of Carthage: Epistles

[15:4] For what do you ask from the Lord's mercy which you do not deserve to obtain? — you who have thus observed the Lord's commands, who have maintained the Gospel discipline with the simple vigour of your faith, who, with the glory of your virtue uncorrupted, have stood bravely by the Lord's commands, and by His apostles, and have confirmed the wavering faith of many by the truth of your martyrdom? Truly, Gospel witnesses, and truly, Christ's martyrs, resting upon His roots, founded with strong foundation upon the Rock, you have joined discipline with virtue, you have brought others to the fear of God, you have made your martyrdoms, examples.

[26:1] Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.

[62:8] If they shall thirst, he says, He shall lead them through the deserts, shall bring forth water for them out of the rock; the rock shall be cloven, and the water shall flow, and my people shall drink; which is fulfilled in the Gospel, when Christ, who is the Rock, is cloven by a stroke of the spear in His passion; who also, admonishing what was before announced by the prophet, cries and says, If any man thirst, let him come and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When you disregard the (very) special scriptural pleading, its workings-out suggest additional support for the concept of Petrine primacy.<<<

As I have said many times, nobody denies the existence of a Petrine Ministry, or of the primacy of the Church of Rome. Many do take issue with the understanding of this ministry to involve universal ordinary jurisdiction over all Churches, or that primacy to be expressed in terms of plena potestas rather than auctoritas and communio. But it is interesting that your views on the primacy are far more maximalist than the last three or four occupants of Peter's See.

[bonobo]

(post-revealing post, as per site problem described above)

[bonobo]

Now that's truly strange. My last comment came up as the only one posted under the comment list...?? 2nd attempt to recover previous comments, again with apologies.

[bonobo]

No dice, I can't seem to get any comment to appear after Labrialumn's of Sep 22 2008, 12:43:16 PM.

Stuart, not being able to read your latest replies, I'll have to assume that they were both patiently expressed and devastating. For now, I retire in utter confusion :)

[Stuart Koehl]

Technical difficulties is as good an excuse as any, O Promiscuous, Fruit-Eating Chimpizoid.

[bonobo]

Thanks to Mr. Kushiner's latest post, I can see the comments now. Stuart, thanks! I appreciate your gathering the Christ/rock references in one place. I now have much to digest...not just bananas.

Of course, I shouldn't have allowed the "universal ordinary" interpretation of Petrine primacy to be confused with my rejection of Labrialumn's "Roman imperial" slur. I can see how you might regard that interpretation as a "unilateral innovation", though I believe neither description is warranted.

First and foremost, it is difficult to circumscribe primacy per se. Secondly there is the question of confusing the workings of Divine Providence and implicit consent of the governed with an active "power-grab".

As an instance of the above points, should not a bishop, though an apostolic successor, be defrockable? Who's to do it?

As for "innovation": to take an early example, what was Clement doing writing to the Corinthians even while an apostle, St. John, lived? That letter was received by the Corinthians. "Unilateral" would be evidenced, say, by a frosty reception. What evidence do you have for either?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As for "innovation": to take an early example, what was Clement doing writing to the Corinthians even while an apostle, St. John, lived? <<<

Quite simple, actually: insofar as Rome was the ultimate Pauline Church, Corinth looked upon itself as a suffragan of Rome. This also makes sense in that Corinth was a Roman colony, and naturally looked to Rome for guidance in other matters.

John, for his part, limited his sphere to the Churches in Asia. Clement did not attempt to intervene in the affairs of those Churches.

Like many of ultramontane inclinations, you are anachronistically imposing Tridentine ecclesiology and ecclesiastical structures on the early Church, which was not the kind of top-down, universal institution that you would have it. That goes to the point about being able to 'circumscribe" primacy, a concept that, in the early Church, did not have juridical connotations. In the ancient world, primacy was a matter of auctoritas, not potestas. The Princeps Senatus had primacy in the Roman Senate--yet he held not magistracy, therefore lacked any form of imperium: he is princeps because he is universally acknowledged as first. He gets the first word and the last word, and his opinion is given considerable weight, but he has no power to compel. That concept of auctoritas was recognized in the early Church as well, and the early bishops of Rome were given due deference because they were the heads of the Church of Rome, which was considered the first Church.

Before Rome was considered the first Church, that honor belonged to Jerusalem, and I note once more, Roman apologetics not withstanding, Peter does not preside at the Council of Jerusalem, nor does he get the last word. That honor belonged to James, the Brother of the Lord. Moreover, the evidence of Scripture is authority was diffuse in the very primitive Church. There are three "pillars"--Peter, John, and James the Brother of the Lord, and the last not even one of the Twelve. Moreover, when Peter and John 'depart for another place", it is James who becomes the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and to James who both Peter and Paul go for ratification of their respective missions, as well as their decision to include Gentiles in the Church.

It is high time that people stop superimposing late Church structures, together with the polemical baggage that has accrued to them, to the issue of primacy in the early Church. Rome has to be willing to let the historical record speak for itself, as does the Orthodox world. But both know that their expectations and conceits are likely to be shattered if they do, so we are stuck in the squirrel cage for the foreseeable future.

[DGP]

>>Rome has to be willing to let the historical record speak for itself, as does the Orthodox world. But both know that their expectations and conceits are likely to be shattered if they do, so we are stuck in the squirrel cage for the foreseeable future.

Really? It seems to me that Rome, at least, has been fairly flexible in her conversations about primacy with Easterners. (By that label I do not mean the EO exclusively.)

With Westerners, she's been less flexible -- but then, the issues are different. IMHO, Westerners who advocate for a non- or less juridical primacy usually do so because they see it as an opportunity to smuggle in sundry heresies. The Easterners, of course, have no such interests.

In the West, like it or not, the need to fill the gap left by absentee civil authorities introduced a strong element of juridicism into ecclesiology. To abandon all juridical claims in the West is to abandon any sense of orthodoxy or Magisterium. We can't simply jump back to the 4th century and pretend we never learned anything from the Visigoths, or Barbarossa, or the Great Western Schism or the Protestant Reformation.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Really? It seems to me that Rome, at least, has been fairly flexible in her conversations about primacy with Easterners. (By that label I do not mean the EO exclusively.)<<<

This is true--though the record is mixed. One problem with the ecumenical dialogue as it now stands is the dichotomy between Rome's assertions to the Eastern Orthodox that communion with Rome will not mean submission and assimilation; and its actions towards those Eastern Churches already in communion with Rome, where the record is mixed at best. In this regard, the ongoing discussions between the Vatican and the Melkite Synod are very instructive: the patriarchal system is at the heart of Eastern ecclesiology, and the Melkites are insisting on the ancient rights and perquisites of their Patriarchate, which calls immediately into question the issue of "universal, immediate and ordinary jusrisdiction" as expressed in Pastor Aeternus. It's significant that in my discussions with Eastern Orthodox bishops and theologians, this, more than papal infallibility, is seen as a real stumbling block--infallibility can be explained away, but universal jurisdiction cannot. The late Archbishop Vsevolod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, perhaps the most "pro-Catholic" of all Orthodox bishops (and personal friend of John Paul II), wrote that, much as the Orthodox dislike juridical statements of the sort, he felt it absolutely necessary that any Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement include an explicit statement of the situation in which the Pope could intervene in the affairs of a local Church, and the limitations of his powers in that regard.

>>>In the West, like it or not, the need to fill the gap left by absentee civil authorities introduced a strong element of juridicism into ecclesiology. <<<

That is true. Surprisingly, it is also true in the Christian East, mainly because the "symphonia" between the Church and the Roman Emperors delegated a lot of the unitive functions to the Emperor himself (e.g., the Emperor could call ecumenical councils, confirmed the appointment of patriarchs, could use civil authority to remove deposed bishops from their sees, could adjudicate territorial disputes between dioceses, etc.). Without that controlling force, the centrifugal forces of nationalism tend to pull Orthodoxy apart. Again, to cite Vladyka Vsevolod, ever since the fall of Constantinople, the Orthodox Church has been looking for a replacement for the Byzantine Emperor. They tried the Ottoman sultans, and that didn't work; they tried the Tsars, and that didn't work; they tried the Kommisars, and that did not work. According to Vladyka, the natural, historic and ecclesiologically proper focus of unity in the Church should be the Bishop of Rome--but only under the historically normative conditions that pertained when the Churches were in communion. And therein lies the sticking point.

On what to do about the Western Church, I believe that Pope Benedict made a serious error in rejecting the title of Patriarch of the West. This intermediate level of primacy, between his primacy as Metropolitan Archbishop of Rome and Universal Pontiff, covers the activities that account for 90% of what the Pope actually does--preside over the Latin Church. The decisions he makes in that capacity, his oversight and pastoral supervision, affect the Latin Church and should have no impact whatsoever on the doctrine or daily operations of any other particular Church. This presently gets lost because of the lack of distinction between the Pope's "papal" functions and his "patriarchal' functions.

Vladyka had several interesting ideas along these lines. One was an insistence that the Pope not delegate his primary responsibility as Bishop of Rome to an Apostolic Vicar. Another was that the Pope follow the canons in the CCEO that require Eastern Catholic patriarchs to maintain separate episcopal and patriarchal chanceries, by creating distinct episcopal, patriarchal and papal chanceries in place of the single Curia Romana. Vladyka thought if the Pope had to rely on a distinct papal chancery for all matters affecting Church unity, and if that chancery was deliberately small, the Pope would not be able to intervene routinely in the affairs of other Churches, but would have to "call his shots" carefully. Conversely, with most of the present Curial functions subsumed into his patriarchal chancery, there would be no mistaking those decrees and directives that affect the Western Church only, and those that affect all the Churches in the world.

[DGP]

>>Another was that the Pope follow the canons in the CCEO that require Eastern Catholic patriarchs to maintain separate episcopal and patriarchal chanceries, by creating distinct episcopal, patriarchal and papal chanceries in place of the single Curia Romana.

Fascinating. And as you note, it's surprisingly juridical in its attitude. For that reason alone, I can see folks rejecting it. (Who wants to see an *increase* in juridicism?) Granted, legal architectures like this can protect particular rights as well as infringe upon them, but might it not be better simply to finesse it all, and let everyone wonder whether papal activities were intended to be locally, patriarchally, or universally pastoral?

[Stuart Koehl]

All power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely--Lord Acton.

According to canon law, the Pope is an absolute monarch, except when he chooses not to act like one.--
Victor Popshishtil, Ukrainian canonist.

No one may judge the Roman Pope--CCEO

These things tend to make the present exercise of primacy problematic. Would you buy a used car from a man who is not bound by his word?

[DGP]

>>These things tend to make the present exercise of primacy problematic. Would you buy a used car from a man who is not bound by his word?

You pick your friends, not your family.

[Stuart Koehl]

True. But a good rule of thumb is never buy a used car from relatives. Things can get frosty at holiday times if you do.

[bonobo]

Like many of ultramontane inclinations, you are anachronistically imposing Tridentine ecclesiology and ecclesiastical structures on the early Church, which was not the kind of top-down, universal institution that you would have it.

"Top-down", "ecclesiastical structures" and "institution" bedamned. If the Petrine primacy is anything, it is a personal office. Hence my reaction to Lab's "Roman imperial" comment, which brought on our argument about history and scripture. Not an argument I'm looking for, (a) because if you asked me what are the implications of my view, you might no longer apply terms like "maximalist" and "ultramontane" (though the latter is a very beautiful word; I love that Tuscan region not far ultra montes) and (more importantly) (b) I have trouble understanding enough of your view to disgaree with you.

That view seems to be couched very much in abstractions like the institution, curiae, chanceries and "structures". All beside the point. What's the point of primacy if it is in things that don't matter? How about Rowan Williams' primacy in the matter of Gene Robinson? It's a joke, man. Auctoritas is all very well but human nature being what it is, a little potestas goes a very long way. Ask the Indian bishop (suspended) who recently adopted a young woman.

Fighting against the tendency of institutions to propagate themselves in a welter of bureaucracy is very creditable. In this instance, the institutions in many instances derive their raison d'etre from the (very much to be emphasised) personal primacy of Peter's successor. Strip them away, by all means. The next time something is needed to be done, they'll start to accrete again because auctoritas needs a little potestas to be actualised in human affairs. In any event, people will naturally entrust auctoritas with potestas merely to ensure that the former persists.

[bonobo]

patriarchally, or universally pastoral

The Patriarchate is a red herring, to my mind. The original 3 patriarchates were Antioch, Rome and Alexandria, not so? Interestingly, all associated with Peter (Alexandria via St. Mark)

Jerusalem was wiped off the map (at least in terms of a local Church) for an age before Constantinople and herself were jump-started by the imperial reforms of Diocletian and began demanding this spurious (dare one say accretive) nomenclature.

Simply put, let there be bishops and one among them one who presides in charity. The other gradations are nearly as bad as the little-c ecclesiology that started my rant above as they provide an excuse for fragmentation of a kind equally damaging to Communio as would be a "Roman imperial" tyranny.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> If the Petrine primacy is anything, it is a personal office.<<<

It's personal because it is ecclesial. The Pope is the Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome, and Rome was accorded priority because of its place at the capital of the Empire, and its double apostolic foundation. Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome (and apparently for a lot longer, too), so if the Petrine ministry is simply "personal", why isn't MY Patriarch, Gregorios III, the Ecumenical Pope? No, the Pope's authority stems from his episcopal office. He is not some sort of Catholic Dalai Lama, whose successor is just "out there"--otherwise, why not leave Ratzinger in Graz and make that the center of the Church? Why not leave Wotyla in Cracow--I'm sure the Poles would enjoy the tourist trade? But we don't--he has to come to Rome. Without Rome, he can't be the Pope.

Second, since the Petrine ministry is indeed personal, the Pope should not habitually delegate decisions affecting the entire Church to his deputies in the Curia Romana. If, indeed, he has a responsibility to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, it is HIS responsibility, not that of some faceless Vatican bureaucracy. But, if he had to make all those decisions himself, he surely would not have the time to stick his nose into the daily affairs of other Churches, which would be to the good.

Third, the Petrine Ministry is one of service, not of supremacy. The Pope serves the Church, the Church does not serve the Pope. Whenever the Petrine Ministry becomes a stumbling block to unity, IT must change, which was the point John Paul II made in Ut Unum Sint.

Fourth, you do tend to claim for the Roman Pontiff far more power than he claims for himself. This brings me to a wider observation that both the hope and the despair of ecumenists such as me is the ordinary faithful of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. On the one hand, many of them yearn for unity with far more zeal than their bishops (who are quire content with the status quo, for the most part), and do far more at the grass roots to promote unity and understanding; if there is a new communion, it will come when the laity demand it, and not before. At the same time, some members of the laity, in their ignorance and lack of understanding, propagate polemical positions long ago discredited, and continue to pick at scabs that by now should have healed. I suppose I should include Protestants in this category as well, since many of them are more viscerally anti-Catholic than even the most super of the super-Orthodox.

>>>The Patriarchate is a red herring, to my mind. The original 3 patriarchates were Antioch, Rome and Alexandria, not so? Interestingly, all associated with Peter (Alexandria via St. Mark)<<<

Two Ecumenical Councils--Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (453) erected two additional patriarchates in Constantinople and Jerusalem. To deny them the status to which they are entitled is to deny the authority of the Church to order itself to best carry on its mission. Even so defective a document as the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches recognizes the right of the Church to erect new patriarchates as needed. Perhaps if that right and office had been recognized we would not be left with the anomaly of a Western Patriarchate whose boundaries are essentially limitless. Upon discovering the New World, at some point a Church would have emerged there with the numbers and maturity to deserve self-government, and we would have a Patiarchate of the Americas. The lack of an effective intermediate echelon of primacy within the Latin Church is largely responsible for the excessive centralization of authority in the Vatican, and conversely, the infantilization of the national and regional episcopal conferences, which were never allowed to develop into true synods.

>>>Simply put, let there be bishops and one among them one who presides in charity. The other gradations are nearly as bad as the little-c ecclesiology that started my rant above as they provide an excuse for fragmentation of a kind equally damaging to Communio as would be a "Roman imperial" tyranny.<<<

So much for the principle of subsidiarity. Yet the fact remains the individual diocese is too small to function effectively while a universal Pontificate is too large. From its inception, the Church realized that there needed to be a regional primacy to deal with regional issues, and these grew organically from the size and influence of certain key Churches.

[bonobo]

why not leave Ratzinger in Graz and make that the center of the Church? Why not leave Wotyla in Cracow

Indeed. Why not leave a bunch of them at Avignon? And Pius XII thought about relocating to Ireland, God help us :) Seriously, I agree with most of what you say. Subsidiarity is vital (as much as in the secular realm). I just happen to think that a system of Patriarchates can fossilize into a doctrinal position with negative consequences. It's a rather high-level "top-down" concept without scriptural basis, not so?