Whoever is not against us is for us

By Mark Malaszczyk

38 "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

— Mark 9:38-9:41 [NIV]

On July 10, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI released a statement stating that "Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church." [1] The document went on to elucidate that the many other Christian communities could not be called churches in the literal sense because they lack apostolic succession. The Pontiff was reasserting a position taken in the year 2000, when under Pope John Paul II the Vatican released a document entitled Dominus Jesus, which declared that the Pontiff was the 'prefect of the congregation' [2] and "set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation." [3] In response to the hue and cry of Protestants, John Paul II offered the following explanations over a two-month period in late 2000:

1. "this confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united."
   
   
2. "The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes — the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life — will enter God's kingdom."
   
   
3. "All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this kingdom." [4]
   
   

No single Roman Catholic Pope ever did more for interfaith dialogue, ecumenism, and Christian harmony than John Paul II; all one needs to do is review the video footage of his funeral services to see the outpouring of love for the greatest Bishop of Rome since Peter by peoples of all faiths. JP II took very conservative, traditional stands on the issues of his day [some of which this author disagreed with], but he never slammed the door in the face of those who have come to the Cross of Christ via a different path. Protestants are questioning both the need for and the timing of Benedict's comments. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries. [5]

Pastor Joseph C. Whyte, author of Christ, Christianity, and the Catholic Religion, offers the explanation that "Benedict's statement is reminiscent of statements made by previous popes that have been described as ex-cathedra (literally meaning from the chair) and claimed to be divine revelations.'' Pope Innocent III issued a similar statement in 1215, ''There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved'' (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) and Pope Boniface made a like pronouncement in 1302, ''We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff'' (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) [6] Needless to say, many Christians hope that Benedict's comments do not represent an ideological return to the Catholicism of the Middle Ages that utilized interdictions, inquisitions and excommunications as political weapons.

Lutheran Bishop Wolfgang Huber rightly "complained [that] the Vatican apparently did not consider that "mutual respect for the church status" was required for any ecumenical progress. In a statement titled "Lost Chance," [Huber] argued that "it would also be completely sufficient if it were to be said that the reforming churches are 'not churches in the sense required here' or that they are 'churches of another type' — but none of these bridges is used" in the Vatican document." [7] On that same note, Pastor John Hagee of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, TX has repeatedly argued that Christ did not come down to earth to create a multitude of denominations battling each other for supremacy over the word of God and engaging in religious legalism. [8]

In April 2005, shortly after his Papal election, Benedict XVI stated that his primary goal was to "reconstitute the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers." [9] He pledged to continue to reach out to believers of all faiths and to maintain the dialogue with other Christian sects that had been cultivated by his predecessor. There were strong reservations about his commitment to this effort offered at the time.

"He is very negative about the world of modern culture, and I share his criticisms," says Leo Laeyendecker, a Catholic professor of sociology at Leiden University in Holland. "But either you try to understand and change its direction, or you turn inward so as not to meet these cultural directions. I think that he is inclined to take the second attitude." Ernst-Ludwig Erlich, a pioneer of Jewish-Catholic relations who has often visited the Vatican, shares that view. "I don't think he can" build bridges to the secular world, he argues. "He will try to keep his Catholics within a certain space, but I don't know how big that space will be." [10]

It is true that Benedict XVI is waging a culture war of his own within the growing secular progressive dynamic of modern Europe. In one of his last pre-Papal addresses, then Cardinal Ratzinger bemoaned a Europe that he said "constitutes the most radical contradiction not only of Christianity, but also of religious and moral traditions of all humanity." [11] Benedict would be able to find a lot of common ground with Protestant leaders on the topics of secularization and amorality. Instead of building this ecumenical bridge, he has chosen to tear it down, thus validating Professor Laeyendecker's reservations.

To conclude, the geopolitical position of Christianity as a whole is very precarious. While Christianity has surpassed Islam as the fastest growing faith ,[12] the Judeo-Christian West is currently at war with Islamofascism and transnational terrorism. This is not a religious war; it is a war on terror. That being understood, it is undeniable that there are strong religious undercurrents in the conflict, and this is not a time for the Judeo-Christian world to be divisive as we seek to bring peace, democracy, and stability to those in the Muslim world looking to break free from the chains of tyrannical, theocratic leadership. Proponents of the Papal position will ignore the connection between Benedict's recent statements and our current global conflict; to discount such a correlation is naïve, and underestimates how galvanized the Muslim extremists are at this time. Islamofascists will take any negative news coming out of the Judeo-Christian world and spin it to serve their purposes and recruitment efforts. As we look to quell sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Christian world should be exhibiting the potential for sectarian accord by example.

Recall that Pope John Paul II expressed his dismay over the current conflict in his criticisms of the United States and the Bush Doctrine ,[13] but he did so in the silky, polished manner that made him the master diplomat of Roman Catholicism. This author disagreed with JP II and instead concurred with National Review columnist David Oberberg when he wrote "official teaching such as the Catechism of 1992/1997 allows the possibility of war justified by the right of self-defence or perhaps the defence of another country. But the traditional view has always been broader than this: Actual physical aggression or the threat thereof is one potential jus ad bellum (ground for war), but so, according to the standard moral theology manuals of the 1950s, are freedom from tyranny and liberation from religious oppression whereby a nation is prevented from worshipping God. Even a grave dishonor to a country can be a good reason for going to war. And the standard pre-1960s theology books also teach that it might be an act of charity for a nation to go to war to bring orderly government to a country in chaos." [14]

As Jesus told his Disciples in Matthew 12:25 [KJV], "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." It is my view that Benedict XVI has abandoned John Paul II's message of Christian concord with his latest comments, at a crucial time in the history of this world. This humbled Catholic is left to ask the Pontiff to consider the following question: "What would Jesus do?"

NOTES:















© Mark Malaszczyk