I’m taking inspiration for this notion from the post Ecclesial Deism over at Called to Communion. Read that post, by all means, but here I’m hoping to distill the idea and reflect on it in comparison to my previously discussed conception of Protestantism as being essentially “negatively ecclesiological.”
Deism is the philosophical doctrine that there exists an almighty God who is the Creator of the Universe; but that this God, after getting the universe going cared about it no longer, either attending to some other project, being essentially uncaring about anything, or else just creating it for something other than humanity, of which we are a by-product. This is opposed to theism, which holds that God is the almighty Creator of the universe, but is also personally involved with the universe, particularly with sentient beings, who He is not only interested in, but are His final cause of Creation. The theistic God is very much the God of religion, who in caring about His creatures reveals Himself throughout history, from Abraham to Moses and so on through Christ. What is prime in this theistic consideration is that God doesn’t at any point stop caring.
Now ecclesiology is the theological understanding of the Church; What is it? Where is it? Who is it? When is it? and so on.
A primary difference between Catholics and Protestants is over the conception of the Church; in fact, I think this is really the only real difference (for the other differences follow from this disagreement). You have either the belief that the Church exists as a visible body established by Christ, begun at Pentecost and from then safeguarded by the Holy Spirit with infallibility so that she would not have any victory scored against her by Hades. This is the Catholic position. On the other hand is the Protestant position, which I have termed “negative ecclesiology.” This position holds that the Church refers to nothing but the invisible community of true Christians (whoever those are). In reality, there isn’t any need for the “Church” except as for something to refer to the community of Christians by; it is not Christians who need the Church, but the Church who needs Christians.
This negative ecclesiology is pivotal in holding a complementary position of ecclesiological deism; the view that God is essentially uninterested in the ventures of the Church. All He cares about are individual Christians; not that this statement is wrong, but, as I believe can be demonstrated, it is hard to see how God cares about individual Christians without a positive, real ecclesiology.
In discussion with a particular Protestant, I was forced to conclude from his stated positions that the Holy Spirit was lazy, incompetent, or simply malignant. This was due to the characteristic of God caring not at all about the Church in itself, but only for individual Christians and their own standing in relation to Christ. But, I asked, how are Christians supposed to have Christianity mediated to them apart from the visible Church? If the Church is invisible, then there is no real way of seeing whether or not something is truly coming from the body of Christians or just some impostor (i.e. dogmas, doctrinal definitions such as the canon of Scripture). And if this is so, but it would seem the Holy Spirit should be interested in having Christians who can be sure of their relation to Christ, then the failure to safeguard a visible body of the Church constitutes a failure of the Holy Spirit in His mission of guiding Christians.
Ecclesiological deism, because it essentially leaves a Christian (if they are a Christian, but they have no power to verify this even to themselves if they believe there is such a thing as an objective definition of what a Christian is, viz. through what they believe and testify to) to his own devices, powerless to be sure of the knowledge that is supposed to come through faith (other than some baseless assumption), unable to be sure of their own interpretation of Scripture despite being as honest as possible about their inquiries,, unable to gauge the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, unable to see the substance of their relationship to Christ, unable to see their moral and doctrinal standing before God the Father, and unable to claim any particular truth for themselves except as a “This is merely what I feel.”
If this sort of despair is the plight we Christians are left to by the Holy Spirit, then damned be Him, and damned be God the Son for leaving us in the hands of such an incompetent tyrannical fool, and damned be God the Father for not sending anyone to us so that we might seek Him out. But I do not believe despair is worth engaging upon; thus I am a Catholic, not an ecclesiological deist.
Interesting.
As an aside, the link between deism and Protestantism is of course historically visible. Part of the Enlightenment project was to undo the mess that Proestantism began (err… that the Renaissance began)… and that Enlightenment project produced, among other things, deism. And understandably so. After the 30 years war it was very difficult for anyone to believe in the God of Jesus who says “love your enemies” when Catholics and Protestants are butchering each other over “right beliefs and practices” (ahhh the irony). That would drive me to the brink of deism!
As for this Protestant you spoke with, I’m sorry you got the impression of the Holy SPirit as the holy ghost (the holy dead guy). Certainly in my experience the Holy Spirit is far from. And many Pentecostals (both in the Roman Catholic Church and among the Protestant Pentecostals) would agree. They know full well how active and vibrant and full of life the Holy Spirit is. Does it bother you Bryce that you hold so dearly to the RCC and yet also see the power of God at work among Protestants?
REV
I am not bothered so much as gladdened to see that Protestants aren’t abandoned by God. Despite all your hopes that God doesn’t care about doctrinal unity in the Church, He still works with you guys, at least to convict you in what you do possess that is true.
In this respect at least Protestantism is like the heresy of Montanism. God is still at work, but without there being a full communion with the Church. The same sort of goes with the Orthodox Church, although they are at least a valid Church.
If we are heretics “like Montanists” are we still saved? (and yes yes granted you’re not God and can’t judge, but seriously, what’s your gut feeling? And what is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? Are devoted followers of Jesus in Protestant churches saved or damned?)
If not saved, then we are more than just heretics – we are not Christians.
If we are saved, then God would be graciously saving heretics, but we would in fact be Christians, which would then remove ALL impetus for me to even consider joining the Roman Catholic Church.
Hmmmm… your thoughts?
REV
Well I don’t know, and I can’t give a judgment. I know that “the Catholic way” works, because that is what God has revealed as working, while ways that deviate from this, in their imperfection requires correction, at least at some point after this life. I can’t imagine that any person outside the Church who is saved gets to do so without a stint in purgatory (although I’d fairly reckon even most Catholics will be getting a stint in purgatory).
So, you could be saved, but ultimately, in your salvation you would be accepting what God has revealed, and if Catholicism is what God has revealed, you would formally be becoming a Catholic to be saved, even if such a “conversion” happens after you die. Though I cannot suggest banking on it, just as I wouldn’t suggest planning on converting later in life so that one can “have fun now” to anyone.
Deism isn’t about God not caring. In fact, for example, read Thomas Paine’s book The Age of Reason. He both believes that God cares and that there will be an afterlife with rewards and punishments, yet he is a Deist (one of the major influences in Deism even) and asserts that God does not make revelations by speaking to people that all God wanted to reveal to man he revealed when he created the world. This is really the idea behind Deism’s nonintervention, not that God doesn’t care about the world but that his revelation to the world was complete simultaneous to the completion of the world, that he put everything he wants us to know in nature and/or in innate inherited knowledge of himself and morality. That way he doesn’t have to appear to polygammists like Abraham or murderous polygammists like Moses and David or just murderers like Paul and reveal stupid ceremonial doctrines to them. All what he wanted to reveal was moral in nature, and he put the knowledge in humanity as an instinctual knowledge. In the end he will judge us, proportionally punishing us proportionally to how bad we were, reward us proportionally to how good we were (not over the top hell forever just for telling a little white lie). This is Deism, the real authentic Deism not the fake atheistic deism that is a characature created by Christian preachers, the strawman that you are burning.
I was not attacking the Deism of certain Enlightenment philosophers, or any sort of Deism per se at all.