Christmas 2009

Dear Family and Friends,

Another Christmas, another year flown by… at 21, life already seems to be flowing faster than sand out of my hands. This is the second Christmas I’ve spent apart from family due to life/career choices of pursuing a dual Masters of Art Theology/Master of Divinity at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, California.  A combination of these choices and searching for our Father’s plan, I find myself living on an edge more often than not, struggling between radical independence and moments of restful trust. So much has happened and so much could possibly be recounted, but as I have given my life to Jesus to continually shape through the direction He has molded into my spirit, one of questioning and probing, I would like to share with you some of the change in this year’s journey that has affected my Christology and allowed me deeper understanding of who I am in light of this Jesus. Backtracking….

The question of a personalized Christology, explaining who the Jesus I speak to in my little journal, blogs, about to friends and all is arose rather recently in a class I took this semester in which my professor challenged me to develop my hidden Christological thesis behind all my ecumenical arguments in the class. I found myself become self-conscious that the Jesus I was arguing from stemmed from belief intertwining with a full-bodied identity in which parts such as head, heart, and soul were inseparable. The more I continued to write in all my classes this semester,  the less confidant I became in my ability to articulate this person: doctrines seemed too formalized and impersonal if true, scripture passages shaded in my coloration were difficult to communicate because my own light of interpretation was too complexly my own to explain in brief, and my own comprehension of this Jesus I try and articulate with my life has been etched into my being through our historical relationship that stretches into childhood. So who is my Jesus, and why would I cling to Him so tightly? In this question, I reflect over the year, retrospectively searching for the hand of God and the provision of hope in Jesus without which the life I now live would be impossible misery.

Before Spring Semester 2009 began, I took a very small intersession course (for several weeks in the month of January) on the subject of “popular religiosity,” the populous practice of faith/religion which usually reinterprets and appropriates the doctrines and teachings of centralized, institutionalized religions to practical uses or personal meanings. In this spirit of realizing difference between definition and use, between “power” and personal possession, I began an exploration of Catholicism and many of my own faith components. Studying a lot of feminist authors and theologies over the Spring, I tenuously began the end of my confirmation journey. Becoming Catholic with a capital “C” ended up being one of the hardest things I have ever done, because my heart still centralizes a Jesus without distinctions (sacraments, denomination, particular authority, etc), and because it seemed to cause nothing but trouble with loved ones. My Dominican friends became all the dearer struggling through this new step on my journey after Church, that elusive and mystical earthly body of Jesus, with me. Completing the process, my questions did not abate, reassuring me that Jesus had not left me upon becoming Catholic.  Having settled a bit more solidly into my degree program, I maneuvered academic requirements more smoothly and with less terror than I had approached them with my first semester. Yet it became increasingly apparent to me that for my academic, spiritual and generally functional sanity that I needed to change my living situation, and thus find more work. Two things that were heavily on my mind at the end of school term, launching into summer work training.

Running my first marathon on my minimal sleep and poor eating habits and high stress levels of the Spring Semester burned a good portion of that worry out of me. God and I have this way of communicating in which we exchange heavy blows: I fight till exhaustion and He has His way with my heart after I have tried every other way. Stubborn, stubborn Hannah, Jesus said to me, you work so hard and try so much, why not lose the worry and risk a little more? The theme of our relationship! Miraculously if felt, I was offered a different position at my current job which offered more hours and thus enabled me to find a quiet apartment with a friend where we could foster an environment of peace and rest. A little haven. That has been an amazing change… more than a room of my own, a place to call home-for-now. A Church identity had given my life a little stability, which in turn threatened its edginess, but a place to go to rest and just be allowed my individualism and creativity to thrive again.

Finally to Fall semester, the excitement of Scripture returned to my life studying the Apostle Paul, and being introduced to questions with which I had previously vague familiarity: the authenticity of Paul’s authorship of all books attributed to him, his own ecstatic Christology which inspired his theological writing and in turn influenced the Gospel writers… Paul and I became travelling companions again and as I re-read his letters over and over, I sensed in them the same spirit of Jesus I was trying to communicate. So I began to try and articulate my Jesus: first in mimicking through attempted comparison and analogy what Paul was saying, then by trying to voice my own Jesus. Yet the whole semester failed to be enough time for me to learn to describe the Jesus I know now. I would never seek for a definition, which could then be categorized as heretical or orthodox accordingly, but Jesus is this person, beyond the pages of the Gospels and Paul, whom I have come to know, who is the way He is to my heart’s eyes because of who I am, how I approach life, how I see people, and how others impact me.

I still want to live a life that is like Jesus, and the only part of that which I would be sure of is His devotion to God, continued reinterpretation of the human identity into which He was born and teachings which also challenged others to walk more closely with the Father. The Jesus I have come to know and am further coming to know is one who must be engaged in an essential dialog… that is really the only way to be with Him, I think. He is invisible, after all… I began speaking to Him as Psyche to Cupid who hid himself from her eyes… with a longing that would be filled, dangerously tempted to light a lamp, but knowing there is no lamp to light. The only way to deepen and enrich His and my conversation is to expand my life dialog with people around me, whose eyes and being capture some divine spark, and allow them to work on and influence my personhood along with my own introspection for better relationship. A constant re-interpretation of Living Tradition, Scripture.

Many blessings on this holiday season (Christmas/New Year), and may you come to speak with Jesus in the manner of your life-conversation that best develops Him to you, and you to Him!

In His Hands,

Hannah

Inter-Christian “othering” is a study which cannot be undertaken in a universalizing approach, as if “Christianity” were a hegemonic term applied to a group with a singular identity. Rather, the very issue of inter-Christian “othering” arises from universalizing tendencies of truth-theory which are not explicit from the basic principles of the Christian faith, defined by Paul as “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”[1] Thus the study of inter-Christian “othering” must be undertaken in the form of case studies, with details as possible to practices of geographical manifestations if the denominations in question. To counteract the covering-up which has occurred surrounding events which erased “heresy” and “heterodoxy,” specific sources must be identified and arguments claimed to maintain the open face of this dialog. This builds upon the philosophical ethic found in the work of Emmanuel Levinas, who argued that the only way to encounter an “other,” which for my purpose will be anyone with a differing viewpoint or perspective, without erasing their identity is to relate with them face-to-face without attempting to assimilate or annihilate their identity. This involves a stripping bare of the parties involved in dialog—a removal of masked identities to expose self-claimed identity. So approaching this subject with a desire to particularize the experiences of Christians while understanding the unification of such persons under the Christian belief principles, I draw my argument for a unity between Catholic and Protestant Christians as a Catholic under a parallel ethic to that argued by the Apostle Paul for a unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians from Galatians 3. The particular argument of Paul for a Gentile/Jewish Christian unity is compelling for an argument against a totality, because of his own opposition to Jewish Christian orthopraxy, innovating a more expansive practice of Christianity.

What does it mean to be dressed by the term “Christian” today in all the plurality of its uses? My own definition is based on my theological interpretation of Pauline Christology from scripture. In examining this question in light of its suggested totality under a unified term, I will lay bare some elements in the process of “othering” in Christological debates between specific groups of Catholic and Protestant Christians whom I have cultivated relationships between: conservative Berkeley Catholics dedicated to upholding the teachings of the Magisterial Church and Bible-belt (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Northern New York) conservative Evangelicals). These arguments alienate each group from having the ability to fully commune with one another, accusing one another of distorted relationship with God based upon particular theological/exegetical errors which skew Christological beliefs and practices.

Rejecting the notion that all Catholics and Protestants have theologically disowned and alienated one another’s Christological unity in the universal Body of Christ, the very fact that these denominations exist suggests several systemic disagreements percolating from differing interpretations of authority, scripture, and the practice of Christian life evidenced in a debate over the necessity of sacraments. Discussing the specific details of conservative Catholic and Evangelical arguments abstracted from my context, I will propose observations from my own religious journey using a mode of argument similar to Paul’s introduced in Galatians 3 to identify concrete examples of beliefs and doctrines which these Protestants and Catholics mutually use to respond allergically to one another. My conclusion will be based on an explanation of my own ecumenical Christology and understanding of the nature of Christianity Paul tried to community to the infant church as it engaged in inter-Christian allergic reactions to Gentile converts. As a final note, I will attempt to propose exercises beneficial to an elimination of the allergy to differing Christian identities, taking into consideration that my own argument may be “allergic.”

I. An Explanation of the First Ecumenical Inter-Christian Argument by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:

A. Context and Background to the Argument:

To understand the basis of Paul’s Christology this allows him to argue to for equal validity between Jewish and Gentile Christians, it is important to evaluate the context in which his argument to the Galatians was given. The entire epistle of Galatians is a radically polemical piece written in opposition to the “evangelization” of Paul’s orthopraxic Jewish-Christian opponents (the Apostles and their converts), who preached that the inheritance of salvific relationship with God does not come from the Mosaic Law. Paul himself gives a brief history of the dispute in Galatians 2, which Luke recounts in greater detail in Acts 15: Paul’s mission as an Apostle to the Gentiles was brought into question at the Jerusalem council, where Paul opposed apostolic Church leaders regarding the requirements for salvation because of Christ. At the council, Paul argued that faith in the gospel allowed participation with Christ through baptism without first requiring Gentiles to convert to Judaism by accepting circumcision. By the writing of Galatians, Jewish Christians were no longer respecting the agreement upon by which Gentiles were exempted from receiving circumcision, attempting to persuade Gentile coverts that circumcision was indeed necessary for participation in the salvific Abrahamic covenant through Christ. In Galatians 3 Paul introduces a new exegetical movement in his reading of the Torah: a preferencing of the Abrahamic covenant, blessings by faith, over adherence to Mosaic Law as essential to his soteriology in Christ Jesus. From this position, Paul supports his argument that the Gentile converts do not need to receive circumcision to enter into the covenant that God made with Abraham.

The purpose of Paul’s polemical argument to the Gauls in Northern Galatia is to dispel any doubts the Galatian church is harboring about their part in the salvific covenant God made with Abraham. Given the relatively new belief that Gentiles can participate in the Abrahamic salvific covenant through Christ, conflicts have already arisen between Jewish and Gentiles Christians regarding reception of the external sign of circumcision with which God sealed this covenant to the Jewish people. Recounting the results of the Antioch conflict over Gentile circumcision debated at the Jerusalem Council, Paul asserts that since the council, Peter and others have gone against the agreed position that Jewish converts would maintain their religious distinctive as Christians, but Gentiles were not bound to take on these distinctions.[2] Paul seems greatly distressed over a conflict in which some Judaizers[3] have raised doubts in the minds of the Galatians both to the truth of Paul’s preaching and validity of his apostleship, as well as the validity of their own faith without circumcision. Paul maintains his argument that circumcision is not necessary to be included in the inheritance of the Abrahamic covenant. This being said, Paul insists that the Mosaic Law was still divinely inspired; simply that it did not instill in human nature the ability to follow in its righteous directing to right relationship with God.

Ultimately, Paul faults the fallen condition of man to find complementarity between the Mosaic Law and the Abrahamic covenant, though he does make the controversial distinction that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises in Christ make Law observance extraneous and even detrimental to the faith of those who were not first under the Law. Asserting the oneness of God and Christ as the Promised Seed of the Abrahamic covenant, Paul opposes his fellow Jewish Christians in regards to the necessity of entering into faith in Christ through the Law of Moses. Recognizing that Moses’ Law was inspired by God for His Chosen People the Jews, Paul equalizes the places of Jew and Gentile before God as sinners. Though the Jews had the path of Righteousness in the Law, they lacked the ability to walk in that path, and therefore were worse off in sin than the Gentiles because they had knowledge of it. Paul frames his argument regarding the Galatian’s assurance of co-inheritance with Christ by addressing the doubts Judaizers have instilled in their minds regarding Law observance and Gentile faith conditions. As I proceed to dissect the argument into its different discernable pieces, I remind the reader that the focus is on Paul’s Christology, mainly because the nature and appropriation of his Christology offer many challenging and individualizing tendencies towards the solution of Catholic/Protestant unity. Paul’s ecumenism between Jewish and Gentile Christians is based solely on his claim of ecstatic revelation directly by Jesus Christ,[4] upon which he also bases his claim to Apostleship (equality with the twelve Apostles who ministered beside Christ).

B. Explanation of the Galatian Argument from its Ecstatic Christological Basis:

Arguing through a post-Christ hermeneutical lens, Paul looks retrospectively at Jewish Paul’s argument essentially redefines the gospel, narrowing to broaden, in a sense—eliminating the essentialism of participation in the first covenant in order to be part of the second—while Paul draws a false dichotomy between Law and faith, claiming that to follow Law is to deny grace, but this is purely rhetorical: Paul must prove Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in order to supersede it. Paul reinterprets scripture and tradition to produce a new conclusion of justification through faith in Christ. Beginning his argument in Galatians 3 with a sub-argument from personal experience of the Galatians: “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?”[5] Paul’s first move to confirm their participation in Christ’s salvific covenant is to discount the Law by appealing to the Galatian’s own realization of the Spirit. Turning to his largest leap by orthopraxic Jewish standards of his day, Paul’s second argument applies his Christological hermeneutic to interpret Abrahm’s justification in scripture as by faith without law. If Abraham ‘believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,’[6] then Paul finds it consistent “those of faith who are the sons of Abraham,”[7] interpreting this broadly enough to suit Jews and Gentiles.

Paul’s third argument to the Galatians introduces a polemic against the salvific use of the Mosaic Law by his Judiazer opponents, which he clearly thinks is an abuse, pointing the impossibility of perfect law observance. The Judaizer’s insistence on the salvific purpose of the Mosaic Law is a false argument, setting up a straw man to hinder the real issue of salvation faith, because no one has ever been capable of perfectly keeping all the commandments of Law.[8] Since no one can keep the Law, all are cursed and need an alternative means of justification, therefore “the righteous will live by faith.”[9] Christ’s redemption removed the curse-Law standard which could not be upheld, replacing it with an interior change by faith. Suggesting that the Abrahamic covenant was never perpetuated by Law[10], and to suggest so is a misinterpretation of the original covenant, Paul indicates that both Jews and Gentiles receive “the promise of the Spirit”[11] through the same Seed Promised to Abraham, Jesus Christ. This argument is based on re-construing of a misinterpretation of the Law as salvific, coupled with a universalizing need and means of justification. Paul’s focus is on an internal state of justification after the coming of Christ, who fulfilled the Abrahamic promise by bringing the Spirit, which completed the purpose of the Mosaic Law.

To support the unity of Jewish and Gentile promise, Paul exegetes his fourth argument, reiterating that the covenant of salvation begun with Abraham was free from condition of the Law. Paul equivocates over the singular use of “seed” when referring to the covenant of salvation made to Abraham and his seed, enabling him to interpret the “Seed of Promise” as “one person, who is Christ.”[12] Since the promise of the Spirit (internal justification before God) was made to both Abraham and Christ, the Law could be read as an innovation to this covenant if faith-entrance is to be maintained unbroken.[13] Paul emphasizes how late an introduction the Law had within the Judaic covenant—430 years—and thus it is impossible for Law observance to become a condition of the covenant, “for if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise.”[14] Yet not wanting to negate the traditional foundation upon which Judaism evolved, Paul clarifies that both the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic Law were from God, while simultaneously knocking down any privilege claimed by the Jewish Christians over the Gentiles by declaring that orthopraxic Law observance does not benefit the sinful human condition. Promise, not Law, is the basis of both Jewish and Gentile Christianity, making discussion of Mosaic Law in post-Christ salvation external to the covenant.

To demonstrate the God-givenness of the Law, Paul assigns it the purpose of arousing conscience by external authority until Christ would arrive to replace external authority with a more perfect internal justification.[15] Further subjugation of external law to internal promise is demonstrated through its revelation, via angels and a human mediator[16], indicating a weight of lesser authority than a direct communication from God. Paul is constructing a hierarchy of promise over law by indicating issues of pre-Christ mediation, emphasizing the oneness of God: pointing to the orthopraxy of the Law as one of a plurality of ways by which one can practice the gospel, the overarching covenant maintained by God’s oneness, though it could not possibly be a condition of the Abrahamic covenant without violating the oneness of God. While the Law was at one time the redemptive compliment to faith, demonstrating human inability to reach justification through external means until the coming of faith in Christ, one need no longer consider the Mosaic Law as jailer[17] or pedagogue “to lead us to Christ”[18] because Christ has already arrived.

In the final three verses of Galatians 3, Paul presents a unifying conclusion to the plurality of gospel practices he has introduced: Baptism unifies all who have placed faith in Jesus, equalizing the Jew under Mosaic Law and the Gentile without Law before God.[19] This equalization under Jesus allows Paul to claim his most ecumenical declaration that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The oneness of God amplifies the ability for plurality within the Christian covenant, Paul argues, all unified by one commonality that is more foundational than any other distinction: faith in Jesus Christ. Thus Paul concludes that faith in Christ is the only requirement for participation in the Abrahamic covenant.

C. Summary of the Galatians Argument:

Paul’s argument is based on two principles: his revelation of Jesus Christ which allows him to reinterpret exclusive, orthopraxic Jewish tradition through a new hermeneutical lens and the justification for a plurality of orthodox practices due to the fundamental Judaic theology of the Oneness of God. Primarily his claim of ecstatic revelation by Jesus Christ, which allows him to claim equality with the Apostles—innovating an entire inclusive/ecumenical movement in Christianity: claiming the same justification for Jewish and Gentile Christians, through faith, regardless of Jewish tradition of Mosaic Law which was irrelevant to the sinful condition of all men. Paul poses his polemical argument to the Galatians against a narrow, fundamentalist Jewish orthopraxic interpretation of scripture to open the more inclusive salvific covenant of Jesus Christ through the same father of the Jewish faith, Abraham. Paul’s Christology, like my own, is the source of his hermeneutical reevaluation of the traditional soteriology of which his staunchly Jewish background had convinced him. Essentially, Paul’s Christological hermeneutic subverts the requirement of orthopraxic Jewish Christianity to raise Gentile converts to an equal position within the covenantal faith of Abraham. Paul’s hermeneutic is so radical partly because it calls into question the identity which many Jewish Christians have identified with in order to affirm the uprising Gentile Christian identity. In this spirit of this ecumenism, I too pose my own argument in like manner regarding Catholic and Protestant Christianities, examining the identities of each group in relation to their Christology.

II. Argument for Face-to-Face Relationship for Catholic and Protestant Christians parallel to the Christological Argument of the Apostle Paul Advocating Unity between Jewish Gentile Christians in Galatians 3

A. Explaining the Identities of Particular Catholic and Protestant Traditions Which Serve as Bases for “Allergic” Reactions to Each Other:

Two issues directly related to Christological understandings in both Christian denominations which have functional and theological repercussions leading to religious allergy between these churches are understandings of Church Authority and the Sacraments. These radically different interpretations of both issues lead to drastically different understandings of the world and faith manifested in highly personalized emotional attachments which are derived from interpretations of the person and work of Jesus. Since the center of the Christian faith, codified doctrines, and praxis are so interwoven into core of religious identities which conservative Evangelical and orthodox Catholic Christians take on, their interpretations of Christology divide them almost irreparably.

In brief summary, these Catholic Christians self-identify through a Sacramental understanding of Christ’s presence in His earthly Body, the Church, defined through the unbroken voice of His Authority in the Apostolic succession of His followers. Based on this belief of continuous presence of Christ’s appointed leaders in the priestly ordination, these Christians identify the presence of the Holy Spirit, divine affirmation of continued fellowship, in the activity and decisions of the institutionalized Catholic Church. Believing that the Sacramental system of seven sacraments was instituted by Christ to impart grace and spiritual nourishment to the believer, these Catholic Christians root their identities in participation in the Sacraments as fully as possibly, so as to be as intimately joined to Christ’s Church as possible. Faithfully adhering to the teachings of the Magisterial Church, these Christians understand the necessary means of approaching God as through the paths ordained by their institution, which self-prepetuates the teaching that it is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. With a compassionate missional perspective to all other Christians, those who have received baptism, these Catholic Christians encourage all non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic faith and receive the other Sacraments of Initiation, Confirmation and Eucharist, to come to full knowing of Christ.

Contrastingly, the small Evangelical communities’ identities to which I have referred originate from non-Sacramental Protestant denominations, which celebrate the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, but as means of declaring and remembering faith rather than as means of mystically communing with Jesus. Participating is seen as obedience and faithfulness as Jesus, not a means of obtaining grace, derived from the Authority of individual interpretation of Scripture and particular church constitutions rather than the decree of a historical authority figure or institution. The individuality and independence of this identity resists more than theological consideration of historical identities, looking instead for affirmation in current cultural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s presence is recognized in the plurality of the term “Evangelical,” which tends to be very open and flexible to change due to close proximity with culture. Such communities tend to derive identity from an understanding of Christ in the world, progressively expanding the Christian identity through relationship with the increasing diversity of society. The primary point of disagreement which creates division between these Catholic and Evangelical communal identities is the presence or absence of a Sacramental understanding of life and relationship with Christ. From this Sacramental or non-Sacramental self-definition, I believe, is the basis for the majority of Christological contentions between these two church denominations, since they tend to agree on issues of morality more closely than any other church groups.

B. Reframing of the Catholic and Evangelical Christological Conflicts in like Manner to the Pauline Polemic in Galatians 3:

As a member of the Catholic Church, I feel a great urgency about the need to approach the Catholic/Evangelical Sacramental conflict in like manner to Paul’s polemical argument to the Galatian Gentiles for an equality of position in the covenantal salvation of Jesus Christ despite his own Jewish Christian identity. My polemic is against the necessity of Sacramental participation to be fully incorporated into the life of the universal church in Christ proclaimed by Catholic doctrine on the basis of my personal, perhaps innovative or even ecstatic, Christology. Since it was the Protestant, Evangelical identity was born out of Catholic Christianity, I will argue for the equality of Evangelical faith practice with Catholic in like manner to Paul’s equalization of the Gentile faith with that of Jewish Christians. Thus, I must present the argument first of the Opponents, my own church of conservative Catholic Christians, and then counter with my Christological equalization of Evangelical and Catholic practice.

Argument of the Catholic “Opponents”:

The Sacramental structure which evolved alongside Catholic identity under Apostolic Authority provided devout parishioners with means to regularly and directly receive sanctifying grace through the seven Sacraments.[20] According to the official teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is “’ the source and summit of the Christian life,’”[21] signifying that the presence and relationship with Christ at the center of religious identity culminates in Catholic participation in the Sacramental Celebration of the Eucharist. Redefining Protestant Churches as “ecclesial communities,” denying their authority to administer valid sacraments, the Catholic Magisterium issues exclusive polemical decrees by claiming “that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church.”[22]

Admitting openly that “the ecclesial Communities originating from the Reformation are not recognized as ‘Churches’”[23] in the Catholic faith, Catholicism claims this is because of an absence of belief in Apostolic Authority which makes impossible “apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the eucharist.”[24] Consolation is offered to Protestants by remembering that their participation in the Body of Christ as ecclesial Communities is deemed possible “by virtue of the diverse elements of sanctification and truth really present in them, undoubtedly possess as such an ecclesial character and consequently a salvific significance.”[25] Thus to the Catholic Magisterium, Sacraments and the ability to celebrate them are necessary indicators of one’s full subsistence in the true Church of Christ. The institutional ability to define orthodox identity draws upon literalistic interpretations of Christ’s foundation of the Church upon Peter and entrusting him with the care of the earthly flock as described in Scripture.[26] From this claim, the Catholic hierarchy’s ability to define the doctrines of Sacraments as instituted by Christ and as encounters with Christ, it would seem that assent to orthodox Catholic identity allows Apostolic leaders to define central Christological practice and experience.

Centralizing the Catholic faith-identity around the Eucharist as communion with the sanctifying grace of Christ in a special way permits the Catholic Magisterium a certain power by its ability to define truth in the Sacramental approach to Christ. If priestly members of the Magisterial hierarchy are the only individuals capable of consecrating the Eucharist, enabling this key encounter with Christ, popular practice of Catholic laity can easily become dependent on the hierarchy for complete definition of Christological identity. By defining the Eucharist as a mandatory practice once a year and encouraging it more regularly, one can see how the practice can become essentialized in context of the Magisterium’s teachings of Apostolic Authority defining the Catholic Church as the source of the one true Church of Christ. The historicity of the Catholic Church’s existence pre-Protestant Evangelicalism would seem to indicate that these claims of necessary participation in the Sacramental life of the Catholic Church as the one true Church hold a heavier weight than Evangelical claims to participate in the true universal church of Christ.

Proposing a Christological Hermeneutic for the Equality of Catholic and Evangelicals as “Church”:

Based off Paul’s arguments of the Oneness of God permitting a plurality in faith practices coupled with the dynamic Christological argument employed to the Galatians, I would like to make five arguments for the equality of salvific approaches with or without Sacraments stylized like those to the Gentile Galatians against tenets of Jewish soteriological salvation. However, my purpose is not to convince the Evangelical Christians that their salvation is valid, for such churches already hold this belief, but to appeal equally to Catholics and Evangelicals as the validity of both systems of Christological relationship. As Paul first appealed to the experience of his audience, I would appeal to the experiences of these sincere Catholics and Evangelicals as to when they first knew salvation: by testimony in personal conversations, my Catholic friends have spoken of being raised in the Catholic faith, but had individual moments of interior conversion, though they were already fully integrated into the Sacramental system. Evangelicals hold that the confession of faith in Jesus Christ is the source of salvation, which is communally confirmed in baptism. Thus, both approaches to salvific relationship with Christ have individual and communal components experientially, though the doctrines of these churches differ regarding their beliefs about the requirements of salvation. Experientially, faith is the mutually experienced component to personally, devotionally know Christ Jesus.

My second argument is based on Paul’s premise in Galatians 3.6-9, that neither Gentile nor Jew received justification from God on the basis of anything other than faith. While Catholicism attaches the event of baptism to Evangelical requirement of faith, scripture does testify to the fact that “faith without works is dead,”[27] yet one could interpret this to be faith without accompanying life-long sanctification is dead. The ambiguity of Scriptural interpretations leaves open the possibility of two different “gospel” approaches such as Paul initially agreed upon, provided that justification by faith is not undermined by extraneous requirements to the faith. While it is traditional to baptize as a declaration of faith, to require baptism in order to participate in faith seems to me too literally reading Paul’s discussion of spiritual baptism.[28]

Regarding the Catholic polemic of Sacramental participation equaling full participation in the life of Christ, this is based upon an acceptance of Apostolic Authority by which such doctrine can be defined. What defines a church, and what besides a claim of apostolic succession descended from the authority Christ bestowed upon Peter could offer Evangelical Christians legitimate churches? One could reevaluate the hermeneutic Catholics apply to Matthew 16.13-20 in order to read a different source for church authority. Reevaluating the critical verse in this passage upon which Catholic Scriptural interpretation begins its reading Apostolic Authority, instead of defining Peter as the rock upon which Jesus founds His church, one could read Christ as founding the church upon the words Peter has just uttered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[29] There is a much broader possibility of religious tradition to draw from if one claims that Jesus is the foundation of the Church rather than the tradition which sprang up with claims to Peter. Besides this, Paul also argues in Ephesians 2.8 and 9 that salvation is based upon a gift of faith that comes without works, so that any work a Christian does must be after the justification by God is accomplished.

Paul’s fourth argument to the Galatians states that Mosaic Law observance could not possibly be a condition of salvation because it was added to the Judaic tradition 430 years after God made His covenant with Abraham. Likewise, the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church were not defined as instituted by Christ, until the Council of Trent (1545-1563), well over 1500 years after Christ, and therefore not conditions of salvation, but development of one tradition of the practice of faith in Christ. While the Sacraments may not have been divinely revealed in the dramatic manner described in the Exodus narrative in which the Mosaic Law was given, they were developed in the context of the Christian community to provide tangible means of uniting physical and spiritual elements of faith in regular living. Yet the defining of the Sacraments as theological practices, like the Mosaic Law to the Abrahamic covenant, are subject to the early requirement for salvation, faith, and thus cannot be requirements for salvation unless they negate an earlier covenant. Thus, one could offer a final argument for the tradition of the Sacraments being humanly mediated while the faith covenant stretches all the way back to Abraham’s faith revelation.

C. Summary of Plurality of Practices for Catholic and Evangelical Christians:

While the Catholic Church has taken a polemical stance against the “church-hood” of Protestant congregations, both Catholics and Evangelicals share the same requirements of faith in Jesus Christ that the Scriptures make for participation in the Body of Christ. Having personally appealed to the experience of Catholics and Evangelicals, regardless of the practice of faith, individuals from both groups have expressed the necessity for a personal conversion experience to fully realize their faith. Noting the requirement of faith for salvation, the addition of works to obtain justification in faith would negate the original Scriptural decree of faith as a gift from God. Since the faith-and-works debate is a highly volatile conversation between Protestants and Catholics, it seems only safe to necessitate the evidence of fruit/works of faith in a Christian’s life after their conversion, but not as an accompanying requirement, as the Sacramental system could present. While stating that Sacraments are not a requirement for faith in Christ, this does not mean that they are not beneficial ways of understanding the goodness of God in the world and the nature of the things He created. The Sacraments highlight the reality of Christianity as an incarnate faith, which then makes functional dualism impossible. Yet while Catholic interpretation of Scripture attempts to exegete its authority from Christ Himself in order to validate its truth claim, the same Scriptural passages have multiple meanings other than that passed on by one tradition. The definition of Sacraments in Christian tradition came at a much later date than did that of Christian salvation, making the requirement of Sacraments for salvation impossible without negating the earlier covenant. Yet in the Oneness of God, the practice of faith, so long as it declares the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, allows for a plurality of practices while unifying the diversity of believers.

III. Some Suggestions Regarding the Mending of Catholic and Evangelical Christologies Through a Face-to-Face Relationship with the Other:

Examining the ethical situations implicit within situations of inter-Christian “othering,” the ethical work of philosopher Emmanuel Levinas provides many considerations which contribute to the theorizing of potential solutions to these “allergies.” While the Apostle Paul underwrites the attempt of one branch of early Christianity to assimilate another by redefining the theological principles upon which such “allergic” identities rest, Christianity today is no longer in such an infantile stage that identities can be redefined by theology alone. Rather, a more explicit ethic must be drawn out of theology with relational implications as redefining as those proposed by the Apostle Paul.

A. Levinas’ Ethic Regarding Interaction with “Other” Identities:

Defining human persons and group identities within the ontological totality of nature[30], Levinas ascribes a certain egoism to such identities that sees everything from a perspective of the self which defines all through projection of itself on consciousness.[31] From this perspective of ontology, identity which is “other” to the defining identity is naturally reduced to sameness with the defining identity (or such an attempt made). The key critique Levinas’ ethic harbors against Western philosophy before him is that it was obsessed with Being to the point of excluding consideration of that which is “Other than Being,” which Levinas ultimately attributes to God, who can only be experienced “as a third person whose infinity is testified to in the infinity of responsibility” for the human “other.”[32] For Levinas, a perspective of the totality of being can only be gleaned through the situation which primordially “conditions the totality itself”[33] from more fundamental situations that are too fundamental to be defined by the totality, which is exemplified by “the gleam of exteriority or transcendence in the face of the Other.”[34] This exteriority characterizes the very relationship by which the self is separated from the other, preventing assimilation into “infinity,” requiring instead the development of relationship to achieve such an ethic.

Attempting to state the relationship to this ethical transcendence of infinity in objective terms, Levinas describes infinity as a shattering of intellectual definition as a revelation to the self as the infinite being of the absolutely Other.[35] Yet, the Other in relation to self does not conform to the self’s projection, but retains its exteriority in the Levinas’ moral conception of infinity.[36] While multiple beings can exist in a theoretical totality, being’s subjectivity makes it exterior to totality, allowing Levinas to introduce the concept of “alterity,” in which identity is always formed in relation of the self to the Other. This a dynamic self-identification, rather than a categorical definition, through experiences. Thus the self which is same become an other, though the sameness of the self universally identifies “itself in the alterity of objects thought and despite the opposition of self to self.”[37] Yet Levinas claims this internal relationship to self as a kind of sameness, not to be given the ethical consideration as an “other.”

Viewing the human “other” as separated from the defining identity of self, Levinas proposes three modes of being towards the other which are possible in this ethic: assimilation, annihilation, or face-to-face relating.[38] The first two possibilities, assimilation and annihilation fall under Levinas’ description of “allergic reactions:” “To be “allergic” is to make oneself impervious to, to resist, to repel the Other as one would an irritant.”[39] It is in a face-to-face relationship with the “Other” that Levinas is a presentation of the “Other’s” self by itself, to which a value cannot be attached.[40] It is only precisely in allowing the individuality of identity to come forth in relation in which the Other remains “Other” that “the dimension of the divine opens forth.”[41] Thus it is impossible for justice to persons to come through any other approach than the face-to-face.[42] The face of the “Other” presents a call in which Levinas found the expression of meaning: “meaning is the face of the Other, and all recourse to words takes place already in the primordial face to face of language.”[43] It is this relating at the level of acknowledged and respected difference, a “welcoming of the face” of the Other which “is peaceable from the first for it answers to the unquenchable thirst for infinity.”[44] A certain vulnerability is present in the “nudity of the face,”[45] able to offer deep value and transformation if regarded in its call to the self-identity, or exposed to abuse of the self. Levinas’ great value of the face of the “other” is its expression to the self of the self’s “ability for power” rather than defying the feebleness of the self.[46] Thus in the thought of Emmanuel Levinas, the “Other” must be respected and related to in light of its difference, as well as taken responsibility for.

“It is the Other’s face that makes me a human being, that establishes humanity,”[47] proposing a social relationship of responsibility that extends beyond the Western intellectual tradition of a cognitive regard for the “Other.” Yet Levinas’ ethic is caught between two conceptions: freedom from thematizing religion and his religious interpretation from Judaism of God as infinity.[48] Solidifying a religious identity in Levinas’ thought regarding the “Other” is difficult, because if God is to be maintained as “indispensable to philosophical meditation, ne must not become nominative, not located in the universe or be the object of worship.”[49] This becomes a point of difficulty in translating Levinas’ ethic into the situation of Catholic and Evangelical conversation where Christology and the personal knowing of God is the basis from which an argument against “allergic” reactions is being made.

B. Appropriation of Levinas’ Ethic Towards the “Other” in the Context on Inter-Christian Catholic and Evangelical “Othering”:

From the perspective of the conservative Catholic identity, the Evangelical is “Other” because his Christology is not manifested in the same way as the Catholic “self.” Yet, from another point of consideration, united under the belief system of Christianity, both Catholic and Evangelical are same in regards to their confession of Christ crucified, buried and resurrected on account of the fallen condition of mankind. I will focus my appropriation of Levinas’ ethic of the “Other” to addressing “allergies” in regards to Catholic and Evangelical as separate identities due to different exteriorities rather than as same. Having written from more an apologetic against the Sacramental Christology as defined by the Catholic Magisterial hierarchy on the basis of apostolic succession, I will continue to refer to the Catholic identity of “self” in relation to Evangelical “Other.”

Through the theological declarations of the Catholic Church describing Evangelicalism as a sub-par identity (in that Evangelical congregations are considered “Ecclesial communities” rather than churches), one sees evidence of an allergy to non-Sacramental practices of Christology. By the very fact that the Catholic Church defines itself as the identity in which the church of Christ subsists, one sees attempts to draw Evangelicals back to “the one true Church,” which would eradicate the Evangelical identity though assimilation. Annihilation of Evangelical Christian identity could be witnessed through Catholic consideration of the Sacraments as participation in the full life of Christ’s church, which necessarily excludes those who do not hold a Sacramental theology from a full Christian identity. According to the earlier discussion of salvific requirements according to the most basic Christian creeds, belief over participation in Sacraments is emphasized, making the Sacramental allergy extraneous to the Catholic system. Sacramentalism, however, is very much ingrained in the Catholic Christian identity, which opposes the equality of Evangelical Christian identity.

C. Suggestions Towards a Face-to-Face Dialog Between Catholic and Evangelical Christians

Having identified religious identities within the Catholic and Protestant denominations that oppose one another on the Christological understandings of authority and Sacraments, how can a face-to-face dialog be introduced to these two communities who share both a similar “allergy” and participate in the same identity as “Christian”? To facilitate such a dialog, both the Sacramental and non-Sacramental systems of faith-practice need to be validated without attempt at assimilating or annihilating one another. Though it has not been so explicitly addressed, the Evangelical Christological identity tends to be as equally “allergic” to Catholicism as the Catholic identity is to the Evangelical. Thus, the conversation must begin with a platform on which mutual identity could be confirmed by both Catholic and Evangelical, faith in Jesus Christ.

Both religious identities confess to the saving power of grace interpreted through the gift of faith, which is a gift from God. While the Evangelical identity reads Scripture literally, that faith should only be confessed with the mouth and believed in the heart to obtain salvation, the Catholic emphasizes the response to God as affirmation of faith, which is the act of baptism. The readings are derived from the same texts, but different emphasizes and hermeneutical traditions. The greater difficulty in interpreting salvific grace by faith arises from church structures: Since the Catholic hierarchy claims institution by Christ, the Evangelical system of organic community necessarily opposes it by not falling under the jurisdiction of the hierarchy. While Evangelicalism does not consider itself directly opposed to a hierarchical church, such structuring is seen as human activity in order to accomplish divine purpose. Such different perspectives cannot be reconciled theologically without applying a re-interpretive Christological hermeneutic.

How can Catholics and Evangelicals view one another as equally participating member in the same church of Jesus Christ? Will it take ecstatic visions and prophecies by a marginalized leader to innovate such a position? Perhaps we should turn then to the interaction of face-to-face dialog, looking towards the future to introduce the necessity of a dramatic re-structuralization of the more-rigid Catholic identity to permit the legitimacy of Protestant Christians? Applying Levinas’ ethic of the “Other” as calling to the self and revealing the self’s own empowerment to the Catholic exclusivity to Evangelical identity, how do the denominations mutually call one another into a deeper relationship with Christ? It is easy to look back on history and see how the Protestant Reformation objected to a series of abuses the Catholic Church later admitted and reformed, and how the systematic consideration of theology carried over into Protestant thought through the former-priest Reformers, but what example is there of a call to cooperatively work for the mutual benefit of the Kingdom of God?

As one example of work that has begun in this call to both Catholics and Evangelicals to draw one another to realizing their complimentary gifts is that of Franklin Graham, son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham. Graham is well known for his ecumenism within evangelical and Catholic circles, receiving a mix of praise and abuse from both sides. In his opinion, however, Graham feels “that his father’s ecumenical alliance with the Catholic Church and all other denominations ‘was one of the smartest things his father ever did.”[50] Leading evangelistic crusades and organizing Christians of all denominations in humanitarian relief work, Graham’s mission statement[51] claims the basic theological tenets of the Christian faith, regularly consulting with leaders of all Christian denominations, to facilitate a work united in a common identity which permits differences. Involvement in such work offers one of many possible solutions to respecting individual religious identities while fostering equal consideration for different Christian denominations within the body of Christ. Just as the Apostle Paul’s argument to the Galatians did not in any way detract from the Jewish Christian identity, so Catholic Christians are not required to sacrifice their religious identity to consider Evangelicals as holding equal identity.

Bibliography:

Aarnes, Asbjorn. “The Other’s Face,” Closeness: An Ethic. Jodalen, Harold,  Ed. And Arne Johan Vetlessen. Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1997.

Bertz, Hans Dicter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Church in Galatia. Hermenia- A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Commentary on the Document Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Accessed on 8 December 2009: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html>.

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Church. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2 April 2004. Accessed on 8 December 2009: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html>.

Derry, Evelyn. Seven Sacraments in the Christian Community. London: The Christian Community Press, 1966.

The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church, Lineamenta. Synod of Bishops: XI General Ordinary Assembly, 25 February 2004. Accessed on 8 December 2009: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html>.

Galatians 3.19-25; The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. 30 November 2009. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203.9-18&version=ESV>.

Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 29. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.

Levinas. Totality and Infinity. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell (MA), 1991. 22

Longenecker, Bruce W. The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Madera, Frank. Galatians. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 9. Ed. Daniel J. Harrison, S.J.. Collegeville:  A Michael Glazier Book from The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Perkins, Pheme. Abraham’s Divided Chrildren: Galatians and the Politics of Faith. The New Testament in Context Series. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001.

Romans 3.9-18; The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. 10 November 2009. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%203.9-18&version=ESV>.

Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Boring, M. Eugene, translator. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Silva, Moises. Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, A Division House of Baker Book House Co., 1996.

Stott, John. Christ the Controversialist: A Study in some Essentials of Evangelical Religion. London: Tyndale Press, 1970.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. United States Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington, D.C.: USCC Publishing Services, 2006. St Charles Borremeo Catholic Church in Picayune, Mississippi: <http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1.htm>. Copyright permission for posting of the English translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389. Accessed 23 November 2009.

Wilson, Todd A. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians. Series: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe, No. 225. Ed. Herausgeber. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

[2] These distinctions were symbolized by the ritualistic circumcision.

[3] Most likely “Mosaic” according to most commentaries; orthopraxic Jewish Christians who believed Gentiles should receive circumcision to share in the benefit of the Abrahamic promises.

[4] In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul stated one of these claims: “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1.11-12) A second reference is found in the second epistle of the Corinthians, in which Paul is commonly thought to speak of himself in the third person: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— ⁴and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.” (II Corinthians 12.2-4).

[5] Galatians 3.2, English Standard Version of the Holy Bible.

[6] Paul is quoting Genesis 15.6 in Galatians 3.6, Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible.

[7] Galatians 3.7, RSV.

[8] Galatians 3.10, RSV.

[9] Galatians 3.11, RSV.

[10] Galatians 3.13, RSV.

[11] Galatians 3.14, RSV.

[12] Galatians 3.16, RSV.

[13] Galatians 3.15, RSV.

[14] Galatians 3.18, RSV.

[15] Galatians 3.19, RSV.

[16] Galatians 3.19, RSV.

[17] Galatians 3.23, RSV.

[18] Galatians 3.24, RSV.

[19] Galatians 3.26-17, RSV.

[20] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. United States Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. Part 2, Section 1, Paragraph #1210-11.  Washington, D.C.: USCC Publishing Services, 2006. St Charles Borremeo Catholic Church in Picayune, Mississippi: <http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1.htm>. Copyright permission for posting of the English translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389. Accessed 23 November 2009.

[21] CCC 1324; and The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church, Lineamenta. Synod of Bishops: XI General Ordinary Assembly, 25 February 2004. Accessed on 8 December 2009: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html>.

[22] Commentary on the Document Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Accessed on 8 December 2009: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html>.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Matthew 16.13-20; Luke 10.16; John 21.15.

[27] James 2.20, ESV.

[28] Romans 6; II Corinthians 5.17.

[29] Matthew 16.16, ESV.

[30] Levinas. Totality and Infinity. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell (MA), 1991. 22

[31] Ibid., 24.

[32] Min, Anselm K. “Naming the Unnameable God: Levinas, Derrida, and Marion.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 60, Numbers 1-3 / December, 2006. Springer Netherlands. 99.

[33] Levinas, Totality and Infinity. 24.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., 27-8.

[36] Ibid, 83.

[37] Ibid, 36.

[38] Ibid., 37-9.

[39] Wychogrod, Edith. Emmanuel Levinas: The Problem of Ethical Metaphysics, 2^nd Edition. 2nd ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000.

[40] Levinas. Totality and Infinity. Ibid., 202.

[41] Ibid, 78.

[42] Ibid, 71.

[43] Ibid., 206.

[44] Ibid, 150.

[45] Ibid, 74.

[46] Ibid, 198.

[47] Aarnes, Asbjorn. “The Other’s Face,” Closeness: An Ethic. Jodalen, Harold,  Ed. And Arne Johan Vetlessen. Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1997. 22.

[48] Ibid., 24.

[49] Ibid, 24.

[50] Cloud, David. “Franklin Graham’s Unscriptural Ecumenism,” Way of Life Literature. Reprinted on: Oct/06/08 18:18. Accessed 8 December 2009 at: <http://www.wayoflife.org/files/2bc458bcb056b2bb48f351d8f6b7b6cb-41.html>.

[51] The Billy Graham Evangelical Association “Statement of Faith” which Graham claims along with his father includes the following points: “• The Bible to be the infallible Word of God, that it is His holy and inspired Word, and that it is of supreme and final authority. • In one God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit• Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. He led a sinless life, took on Himself all our sins, died and rose again, and is seated at the right hand of the Father as our mediator and advocate. • That all men everywhere are lost and face the judgment of God, and need to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through His shed blood on the cross. • That Christ rose from the dead and is coming soon. • In holy Christian living, and that we must have concern for the hurts and social needs of our fellowmen. • We must dedicate ourselves anew to the service of our Lord and to His authority over our lives. • In using every modern means of communication available to us to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.” Accessed on 9 December 2009, at: <http://www.billygraham.org/StatementOfFaith.asp>.