Understanding Catholics

This week (9/2/15 – 13/2/15) is the annual ‘Events Week’ organised by the Durham Christian Union (DICCU). There are lunchtime and evening talks every day of the week where we look at specific questions raised against Christianity (lunchtime) and examine the claims Jesus makes (evening). There are also events catered for international students. All of the talks are geared towards explaining the Gospel and what it means to be a Christian.

          It was at the evening international event last night that I had a chance to discuss Catholicism with a friend. Through the conversation, I was struck by how clear it is that both Catholics and Evangelical Protestants have misunderstood each other for many years. My friend might not be representative of what all Catholics believe, but I think some of the questions he raised are helpful for Protestants to think about and examine. But firstly, a bit about my friend. He is a Singaporean reading Philosophy and Theology in Durham. He comes from an independent Protestant church but converted to Catholicism before coming to Durham. And this is his reason (with my paraphrase): the Catholic Church is the authentic and true church of Christ. She is right, and Protestants are wrong in their beliefs.

          His main concern, I found, was not on matters of salvation (soteriology) but on the church (ecclesiology). He argues that the principle of the Reformation is troubling. Where Biblical interpretation is left to the individual, how can there be consensus on its meaning and truth? He draws on the example of church splits, starting of new denominations, and liberal Protestantism. His challenge is that with no central figurehead to authenticate and give authority to Biblical interpretation, it is easy to misuse, abuse, and misapply the Bible in all matters of Christian living. Expressing angst against post-modernism, he says that Biblical interpretation becomes a wholly subjective and personal exercise if the Protestant principle is held. In short, no one Protestant can consider another’s interpretation of the Bible as incorrect, since authority lies in the individual and not in the (Catholic) Church.

          I think I understand his qualms, but perhaps he has misunderstood Protestants. His suggested ‘Protestant principle’ seems to work in theory, but in practice, I don’t think the argument holds water. As an individual, I don’t interpret the Bible one way and reject all other interpretations. I am ready to acknowledge that I’ve understood a word or verse or passage wrongly when someone else shows me a better reading using careful hermeneutics.

This is because I believe that the Bible’s authority is intrinsic, and not imposed extrinsically. The spirit of the Reformation is that we constantly check our understanding against Scripture. We weigh our interpretations, and measure their validity against the big picture of the Biblical message. Consistency and assurance can then be arrived at. However, because we are fallible, our interpretations can be incorrect. That’s why I think the ‘Protestant principle’ good in the sense that no one man or institution or tradition is right, and studying the Bible is both an individual and communal activity as the Christian seeks to understand God’s Word in the context of the Christian community – and this community transcends time, space and denominations.

Sure we have our doctrinal differences, but the Gospel message is essentially the same. Perhaps the reason why Protestants fought, and continue to fight is because we are still sinners. And Protestants have to seriously consider whether by sacrificing unity for pet peeves is right and proper.

So can there be right interpretation? I believe so, but that is for another discussion. God spoke decisively as the author of Hebrews puts it ‘in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.’ (Hebrews 1:1) Final authority, however, doesn’t lie in the individual, neither does it lie in the Catholic Church. Before the mutual defamation continues, let’s think carefully about what this entails.