A copy of the Cork Christian News (CNN)
dated June 19th June 2002 was passed on to me. The CNN was compiled by
Rev. John Faris who is the local Presbyterian minister here in Cork. He
had recently handed over the work to another who has had to report that
some of the recipients of the CNN have been very unhappy at some of the
contents of this news sheet. It is evident that the inclusion of some
events either run by or including those who are Roman Catholics have
caused some concern. Rev. Faris e-mailed the current compiler and his
e-mail was circulated to those on the mailing list.
I intend to comment on the reply of
the Rev. Faris as it appears below. As I do so, please note the
following (1) No personal attack on anyone of any religion is intended,
(2) I am aware that perhaps some Cork Roman Catholics may well read
this reply. Let me assure them that I am not anti Catholic…but I am
certainly anti-Catholicism i.e. I oppose those distinctive doctrines of
the Church of Rome which have no Biblical basis. (3) I have no desire
to rock any boats or promote any personal agendas. The original
statement appears in black…my comments in (bracketed red.)
THE COMPILER WROTE: I
took over the task of editing this newsletter from the founder John
Faris, who has put many long hours into providing this service to the
Christian community in Cork! :-) I have been in contact with John Faris
about the recent complaints and he had this to say about the content
and purpose of the newsletter (following is an email from John Faris): "I began Cork Christian News with the
vision that as many people as possible would know about as many events
as possible which could in a broad sense be called 'Christian' in the
Cork area. By 'Christian' I meant those who confess faith in Jesus
Christ in terms of an historic Christian creed such as the Apostles'
Creed. I know that some use the word 'Christian' in a more restrictive
sense as applying to those who have a had a personal 'born again'
experience, and who, some would hold, are in no way involved with the
Roman Catholic Church.
(Of
the two definitions, the "more restrictive" definition is the only
correct one. When the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch
(Acts 11:26) it was a reference to those who were born again. They were
first called disciples but the local wags coined a new phrase. Likewise
when Peter spoke of those who would suffer as Christians (1 Peter 4:16)
he was addressing those who had been "begotten…unto a lively
hope" (1:3) and "born again…by the word of God" (1:19) Likewise
when Agrippa said to Paul. "Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian" (Acts 26:28) Paul desired that indeed he would become a
Christian. We become Christians in the New Testament sense of the word
when we are born again. There is no other way of becoming a Christian
except by the new birth. Vital as it is to believe the historic creeds
i.e. the Apostle's creed etc., this does not make anybody a Christian.
If so…then there are "Christians" in hell. If the Bible gives us
a definition…then we should keep to it and not introduce a
secondary and unsatisfactory definition.)
I myself claim by God's grace to be
'born again' knowing the new life of Jesus Christ (John 3:7). As a
Presbyterian committed to the authority of the Bible…
(Sorry
to introduce a break in the sentence here, but this will give me an
opportunity to state that I too have experienced the new birth. I am a
Free Presbyterian missionary, also committed to the ultimate authority
of the Bible and also to the subordinate (i.e. subordinate to
Scripture) standard of Presbyterianism, i.e. the Westminster Confession of Faith.)
…I have many issues of
difference with the Roman Catholic Church on doctrine and practice but
I have also found many Roman Catholics whose devotion to the Lord Jesus
is undeniable.
(We
may take this last statement re: many Roman Catholic's two ways. For
many Roman Catholics, their Lord Jesus is reduced to being a wafer,
continually sacrificed on the alters of their church. Devotion to such
a one can never bring them within the pale of Christianity. Speaking
the truth in love, such a Jesus is "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4)
and not the Jesus of the NT. Where there is recognition and devotion to
the true Jesus of the New Testament, such is greatly marred by their
association with that which is false. It certainly does not, in itself,
warrant the title of Christian.)
It seems to me that to use 'Christian' in the restrictive way can be hurtful and unhelpful.
(This
concern is really unwarranted. To use the term "Christian" in the
restricted way is to use it God's way. It may prove hurtful for the
word of God is sharper than any two edged sword, but if handled right,
it can never prove unhelpful. It is rather more unhelpful to call
people Christians when they fall short of the Bible definition. Again,
speaking the truth in love, if any one is trusting in their baptism to
make them Christians or in their own works of merits or the merits of
another other than Christ alone…then they are not Christians. To
tell them that they are is to do them the biggest disfavour of their
lives.)
When I started CCN I knew there might
be events advertised of which I would not personally approve, but I
took and take the view that it is a news sheet for information and that
people reading it should be trusted to make up their own minds as to
whether or not they want to be involved with a particular event and
whether or not they want to pass on the information to their friends.
Hence the disclaimer;
EVERYTHING IN THIS NEWSLETTER IS FOR
INFORMATION ONLY. I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT OF THE SITES
OR THE EVENTS LISTED.
It seems that the disclaimer was overlooked recently, but it will be reinserted in forthcoming issues.
(Such
a disclaimer, however well intended, is ineffective. By giving this
newsletter the title of Christian, the newsletter carries
responsibilities which no one can simply walk away from. By listing
events which are sponsored by Rome in the same breath as those which
are truly Christian, there is an erstwhile endorsement of the former.
God's line of demarcation between truth and error is at best greatly
blurred if not altogether removed. Had the newsletter merely claimed to
reporting religious news, then the responsibility would have been
greatly reduced and this article would never have been written.)
I appeal to the readership of CCN to
support Laurel in the work she has undertaken in carrying on CCN. If
they have reservations or questions of any kind about particular events
they should approach the contact person listed for that event. Only if
it appeared that an event was promoting a non Christian cult or being
run by a group claiming to be 'Christian' but denying the Trinity and
the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour would there be any
need to approach the editor.
I
fully support Laurel in what she is seeking to do and suggest that we
all pray for a discerning approach when we read CCN as to what we would
want to personally commend to others. In the love of our Lord Jesus, John Faris"
(Another
standard of who can be accepted as Christian is introduced here. The
mere name of Christian is obviously not enough, because some groups
take the title but deny two fundamental doctrines i.e. the Trinity and
the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. We might think here
of the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons etc., But if Rome's position
of the Trinity, for all charitable intents and purposes, may be argued
to be sound, such cannot be said for their position on the uniqueness
of Christ as Saviour.
We
will forbear multiplying quotes, but the following taken from the 1995
Catechism of the Catholic Church (p221) may be considered as official
doctrine. Under the general title of "The profession of the Christian
faith" and the subtitle "Mary's Motherhood with Regard to the Church"
we read: "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues
uninterruptedly from the consent she loyally gave at the Annunciation
and which she sustained without wavering from the cross, until the
eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay
aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to
bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore the Blessed
Virgin is invoked under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress
and Mediatrix." (Emphasis mine)
It
can hardly be more explicit than this. Rome cannot claim that Christ is
a unique Saviour if those offices which go to make up His Saviourhood
are shared by another. There is but one Advocate recognised in the
Scripture and but one Mediator…and that is Jesus Christ alone
(1John 2:1/1 Timothy 2:5) By elevating Mary we have, to quote Mr Faris
above, a denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
So even by the less restrictive definition of what constitutes a
Christian, the Roman Church still places herself outside the pale.
There
is more which could be said on the matter e.g. the great damage which
ecumenism overall inflicts on the evangelical cause etc., but we will
leave it there for another time.)
THE END