Whether the two statements are related may always be a matter of speculation. The first statement was issued by the United Nations-sponsored Millennial World Peace Summit of religious groups from around the world. The second statement came from the Roman Catholic Church claiming the full power of papal infallibility.
Both statements point to truth, but both statements are limited in their value.
On Aug. 31, in the final session of the four-day summit of religious leaders, more than 1,000 persons agreed to a statement titled “Commitment to Global Peace.” The men and women present pledged support to end religious-based violence and agreed to respect each other’s faith.
In a day when religious-based violence between major faith groups makes headlines around the world on an almost-weekly basis, a pledge by leaders of those faiths to end violence and bloodshed is welcome news. Whether the faith be Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh or other, calls to abandon violence and end hatred could improve life for thousands, perhaps millions of people.
And even though the pace be “glacial,” as one observer said, the fact that religious leaders talk to one another about common problems instead of throwing hurtful and inciting barbs and bombs at one another is progress.
One impression many people drew from the U.N.-sponsored meeting was that the meeting promoted the concept that all religions are equal in value, that no single religion is better than any other. That may have been the impetus for the statement by the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic statement went far beyond contending for Christianity.
On Sept. 5, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a statement at the Vatican that attacks religious relativism. The statement said religious relativism leads to the belief that one religion is as good as another. Thus came the speculation about the tie to the U.N. statement.
“If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace (through general revelation),” the statement said, “it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.”
Baptists can say “amen” to that statement when it is understood in a certain way. The Bible clearly teaches that God is revealed in a general way through such things as creation. Paul writes that God has not left Himself without a witness to any people. Paul also declares that people everywhere rejected this knowledge of God. That is why they need a Savior.
God sent His Son, Jesus, to provide that Savior. Through Jesus, God became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus died on a cross to pay the price for our sin. God raised Him from the grave giving victory over death to Jesus and to all who believe on His name. That is the message preached by the church. It is the “fullness of the means of salvation,” as Ratzinger said.
The message preached by the church is not like one dish on a cafeteria line. It is not a matter of picking and choosing what one likes. The “scandal” of the Christian faith is that it is an exclusive faith. The gospel message is the “fullness of the means of salvation.” All other faiths are “in a gravely deficient situation in comparison.”
Unfortunately, Ratzinger’s words about the church do not mean the universal church of all who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. When Ratzinger says “the church,” he refers to the institution of the Roman Catholic church. Thus, the Sept. 5 statement says the Roman Catholic church is the only instrument for the salvation of all humanity.
The 36-page statement makes the same mistake that scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day made when they claimed that, because they were “sons of Abraham,” they were rightly related to God. Ratzinger seems to be saying that relationship to the institution is more important than relationship to the message of Jesus Christ.
The statement contends that Baptist and other Protestant churches are “not churches in the proper sense” because we do not have an unbroken line of succession to the apostle Peter. Our churches are “defective,” the statement says. Roman Catholics are instructed to stop referring to other Christian bodies as “sister” churches. They say Roman Catholicism is the “mother” church and others derive their identity from it.
Ratzinger does acknowledge that persons in other Christian bodies can have a relationship to God through faith in Jesus Christ but calls such relationships “imperfect” because they are not through the Roman Catholic church.
Observers called the statement an “urgent attempt by the Vatican to reassert traditional Catholic doctrine.” Most Baptists will react with sadness. It represents a mind-set Baptists hoped had been left in the pages of history.
During the 1960s the Second Vatican Council acknowledged that God’s Holy Spirit had actively worked in fellowships (churches) other than Roman Catholic. Christians from other denominations were accepted and called “brothers and sisters” in Catholic documents.
The Second Vatican Council ushered in greater cooperation and greater understanding between Baptists and Catholics and Catholics and other faith groups than any other time in history. Now that is placed in jeopardy. The new statement has met with rejection from every major Christian group, and Catholic bishops in many parts of the world are hurrying to do damage control.
The church is important. Christ died for the church. The church is His bride. But God’s church exceeds the earthly organizations and institutions of man. As Baptists understand the Bible, the door to membership in God’s church is determined by faith in Jesus Christ, not having one’s name on an institutional roll.
As a Baptist, I could not disagree more with Ratzinger’s Sept. 5 statement asserting the primacy of Roman Catholicism. Personally, I also regret the divisive element his words reintroduce into the official Roman Catholic position toward other Christians.
Here is where the United Nations statement is a good reminder. Even though one disagrees with another person or another religion, one still owes the courtesy to treat that one with respect and to do that one no harm in word or deed. In the end, the United Nations’ statement may be more beneficial that Ratzinger’s.
Share with others: