Myth Busters: Primitivism

Setting aside your preference for baby chub, do you prefer this...

Me at 2

...to this?

Or this...

to this?

"So He was saying, “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? “It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and threw into his own garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.” Luke 13:18-19

Before I begin, let's think about the pictures above. Should I prefer the child or the small sapling simply because they come first? Obviously not. It would be foolish to desire the former over the later, because it was precisely for the later that the former came into existence.

Yet many object to the Catholic faith because of its maturity. They don't exactly say it that way, but generally the objection comes in the form of some type of claim that the first Christians were "Messianic", Jewish, blew shofars, ate matzo balls (exaggeration), met in homes and certainly didn't have all the pageantry, form and "pomp" of Catholicism. They think that this is a sound and solid argument against the Catholic Church. Of course, these same folks cannot deny that in the first century, Christians began to call themselves "Catholic" so as to distinguish the apostolic Church from the sects. However, even that act, of calling themselves Catholic -- on their view, is an example of a departure from the primitive and what is oft implied "pure" nascent church.

To unpack the error of this view, one must first discern whether or not (a) their view of the primitive Church is accurate, (b) whether or not their can be authentic development (i.e., organic growth) in the Church and lastly (c) if their view can be substantiated as a preference either by reason and/or revelation. For pedagogical purposes, I will deal with these points in reverse order.

1. It is against reason to prefer that which is prior correlative to that which caused it.

The myth of "primitivism" is an irrational proclivity toward an awkward synthesis of the ornate and the immature. The primitivist wants what is old -- that's why he asks for the "old time religion", but he also wants what is young. He wants a very small old man, or he wants a six-foot tall infant. However, what makes an old man so valuable is that he is not young, and it is the youthfulness of the infant that makes it so vulnerable. We prefer an infant to nothing, but when making a decision we prefer the counsel of the old man. Nonetheless, some still object that the wise young man can become the stupid old codger.

True.

However, when we consider any object, it is obvious to all that whatever it is we are talking about tends toward some end (teleo). The end is namely that for which it was purposed. In the picture above, we see a certain end, or namely that for which the architect(s) intended. However, as you know, this castle will not remain like this. External causes will act on it, even internal causes intrinsic to the material itself will cause it to decompose and eventually cease to exist.

There are two possible ends: life or death. If the Church is merely a natural object, then we should expect it to decay. If the Church is a supernatural object, founded by Christ, we should expect the reverse. Anything less is what Bryan Cross aptly calls "ecclesial deism".

2. All living things grow. So, too, the Church grows and by the power of the Holy Spirit is maturing into the full stature of Christ (Eph 4:13).

In Luke 13:18-19, Christ gives us a glimpse into the life of the Church. In Blessed Newman's famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he examines whether it possible for authentic development to take place. He discusses a number of criteria, and instead of going into all of them (you can read the book for yourself), I will summarize what I believe to be the most germane.

First, before I look at Newman's criteria, one should be aware of the numerous developments in the doctrine of the Catholic Church in the first four centuries:

• Trinity
• Hypostatic Union
• Two natures in one person (Homoousian)
• The canon of Scripture
• Mary as Theotokos

A few criteria:

• What comes after does not destroy what comes before
• What comes after finds its raison d'être in what comes before
• What comes after has a kind of DNA relationship to what comes before

Theotokos

I have yet, to this day, to find one Catholic dogma to be in violation of any of these principles of doctrinal development. Further, it is only the Christian who rejects all creeds and councils in favor of the creed of creed-less Christianity, who rejects all doctrinal development prima facie on a fundamentalist rendering of sola scriptura. Sadly, as my article on doctrinal development demonstrates, fundamentalism does the same thing to truth that liberalism does. In fact, the fundamentalist rejects doctrinal development because it appears to be liberalism. However, doctrinal development does just the opposite: it conserves.

The plant, when it grows, conserves its uniqueness. It persists in existence through its growth. The non-growing thing decays, and fails to persist in existence precisely because it does not grow.

What about God? Are you advocating for a type of open theism?

No way.

God is completely different than (other) creation, and, the Church is His New Creation.

What about Scripture? It doesn't grow.

In one sense it doesn't, but in another sense it does. Obviously, the Church has closed the canon and there will be no more passages of Scripture added to it. However, in her doctrinal development, the Church recognizes the expansive, potent, and inestimable riches of the deposit of faith found in Sacred Scripture. In fact, a view that closes one off from development of doctrine makes the Sacred Text reductive, less potent, and expendable.

3. The primitive Church (1st century) was already Catholic, and any claim otherwise is the error of the Judaizers. 

The error of the Judaizers was to hold to the belief that the Mosaic ceremonial law and customs were to be strictly enforced in the Christian community. It is true that for the first 40-50 years of Christianity, it is was viewed primarily as a sect of Judaism. This fact, however, should not be confused with the idea that Christianity is in fact a sect of Judaism. That view is grossly incomplete and fails to grasp the universal goal of Christ's salvific work (John 1:29). Further, many of the early theological issues dealt with the gradual development of Christianity's clean break with Judaism as a religion. This is evidenced in both Galatians and Acts and portended in Christ's prophecy about the destruction of the temple (Matt 24:2). We might say it wasn't until 70 AD and the destruction of the temple that the Church could truly established her identity separate from the cult of the temple; not because she was always separate from that cult but that culturally, the temple dominated the mind share of the people.

When we examine Matthew's account more closely, it is not just a coincidence that Christ says, "not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down" and that earlier in his ministry, St. Matthew recounts that Christ called St. Peter "the rock" (Matt 16:18), that the Church is built upon stones, the cornerstone of which is Christ (Eph 2:20). In a sense, we should expect that the "old stones" of the temple were still being cast down between our Lord's ascension and the destruction of the temple.

At this point, I could really just rehash another one of my posts. Instead, I will turn your attention to my post:

Myth Buster: Constantine Founded the Catholic Church

Considering the first two paragraphs (above) and the post about Constantine, it should be clear to see how, what, and why the Church emerges as she does in the late first century. The Old Temple, and its cult, has been destroyed. The New Temple has been built, whose cornerstone is Christ, and whose steward is a rock for whom the Church will lean upon for unity until His return. Of course, we know that the great scandal of unity and the Petrine See is that it has caused many times just the opposite. But, we should not be surprised. Our Lord told us it would be so.

In conclusion, primitivism is only preferable for natural objects. However, even for natural objects that are animate, many times we prefer what is after to what is before because it is precisely in the process of the passing of time that the value of the thing comes to the fore. However, for supernatural objects, we should never prefer what is before simply because it is before. 

That is irrational, unbiblical and a-historical.

Everyone Believes in Development of Doctrine

What is the alternative? A stillborn idea?

No one can object to the development of doctrine. Our mind will not allow us to do it. What someone rejects is a mutation, fissure or outright divorce of a new concept from its predecessor. That is not development. As a Catholic, I reject that type of change as well.

On second thought, it is possible to reject development of doctrine. Though, the two alternatives to development of doctrine are fundamentalism and liberalism. Let me explain.

"It's okay little guy. You
are safe from development
of doctrine here."

Fundamentalism posits an idea in such a way that makes it incompatible with itself. It makes ideas unbelievable because one must reject so many obvious other true ideas in order to hold to one true idea. It is a compelling local-view, and I use "local" because fundamentalism is not a worldview. It can never have the world in mind, because the moment it does it begins to "flee" out of necessity for survival. It is epitomized by the behavior of the sects.

Similarly, liberalism also makes it to where an idea is incompatible with itself. It is precisely because it considers all ideas as equally valuable that it casts some idea in such a way as to make it untenable. It, too, is a compelling local-view, and I use "local" because liberalism is not a worldview. It can never have the world in mind because the moment it does it retreats into itself because, by their nature, ideas are competing and contradictory. Liberalism is epitomized by our world of mass isolation. Thus, fundamentalism diminishes the value of truth due to a dogmatic adherence to one truth at the expense of all other truths. Liberalism diminishes the value of truth due to a leveling of all truth statements in such a way as to empty all truth statements of their import.

Development of doctrine, on the other hand, operates under the principle that "all truth is God's truth". That a sunset in all its radiance and the birth of a child in a poorly lit alley are compatible with beauty. That just because prima facie (on the face), I do not understand how two truths fit together--they do. In this way, development of doctrine is conservative. By taking in the one good, it preserves the other.

Many contend that Blessed John Henry Newman's idea of development was far too influenced by the intellectual soup du jour. Particularly, this non-argument connects Darwinian theory to Newman in such a way as to prey upon the fundamentalist tendencies of some Christians (to throw out babies with some bath water). If Darwin thought it, the meme goes, then it must be wrong. Ergo, if Newman was influenced by the "spirit of Darwin" his theory must be wrong.

He looks too much
like Newman...

Let's get something straight. I think we can all agree with the idea that things change over time. This is rather uncontroversial. Last time I checked a mirror, the principle was at work. However, what Darwin and Newman do with this observation is quite another thing all together. Where he goes wrong, Darwin seeks to explain the genesis of life and subsequently posit a naturalist explanation for the unfolding of the entire naturally observable world. Newman, on the other hand, considers the necessary metaphysical principles that govern the development of an idea. One denies metaphysics, the other affirms it.

Here is a brief sketch of what I mean by development of an idea:

• Call idea "A",  where A = {1- 7}; {  } = some set of cohering propositions
• We can know {1- 4} by observation, reason (act of intellection) or by revelation
• If we know A and we learn B, where B = {4 - 12 }
• and the propositions in B cohere differently than A
• then if A and B are true
• We should expect, where A and B are coextensive, they are compatible
• One consequence of their compatibility is a new set "C", where C is a new {  }
• C, if it is to be a development, cannot be either (1) identical to A or B but also (2) cannot be "repugnant to the being" of A or B (to borrow a scholastic axiom)

Doctor Subtilis: defender of the
"Immaculate Conception" and
user of the phrase "repugnant"

What's important is to identify the ground for our intuition of how A and B cohere. As I noted, if we think about our types of knowledge as either observational (the sky is blue), intellectual (knowing a universal--e.g., all skies are blue), or revelation (Jesus is consubstantial with the Father), then in two cases we have a rational ground to have a prima facie intuition of incompatibility. For example, if one comes to the edge of a cliff, one has an immediate intuition that it is not a good idea to jump off of the cliff. One does not need to jump off the cliff (observation) to figure out if it is a bad idea. The intuition is grounded in observational knowledge of natural phenomena. Similarly, one can have a prima facie intuition that if Tom exists, it is not true that Tom does not exist. This is both grounded in observational knowledge (that Tom is the kind of thing that I have observed that can exist), but more importantly, it is grounded in intellectual knowledge--namely, that for Tom to exist and not exist are incompatible at the same moment in time (because of the law of non-contradiction). 

However, we do not have a ground for a prima facie intuition of theology. In fact, an intuition (from the Latin intueri) implies a relationship between the knower and the thing known. So, it is rational that we can have a prima facie intuition regarding knowledge that comes to us by observation or an act of the intellect. Theological truth (revelation) comes to us not as an act of observation or intellection, but via divine accommodation and condescension. Accommodation meaning that God uses language that is meaningful to us correlative our cognitive abilities and relative experiences, and condescension meaning that for God to even speak to us to begin with is pure grace (analogia entis).

Thus, we can have no real prima facie intuition of theology. We can come to a conclusion by a process of analysis, but we should not think about that as an intuition--because frankly we have no "insider track" to theology--like observational or intellectual knowledge. Which leads to my final two questions: (1) What motivates or grounds the development of doctrine in theology? and (2) What mistake is made when one prima facie rejects theological development?

(1) What motivates or grounds the development of doctrine in theology?

The motivation and ground of working the brief sketch outlined above (set A, B, C) is an act of the will in obedience to our first principles (intellect). These principles can be articulated as a commitment to trusting the reliability of our senses (observation), affirming universals or basic causality (intellection) or to faith (divine revelation). In the case of theology, faith animated by agape causes the individual to submit their intellect to that which is higher than it--namely, God. Therefore, the history of Christianity is truly the history of the Church articulating the truth of revelation progressively and dynamically in relationship to the necessity of her contemplation of the ideas present in revelation.

For example, we might say that the Council of Nicea was of necessity the Church's contemplation of

Sorry about all the philosophy

various ideas present in the deposit of faith (revelation), but her articulation was something both different from any one particular idea already present (to the mind of the Church) but not against the existence of any one idea already present. Thus, if A and B exist, and the Council articulates C, C now becomes a part of the deposit of faith, if and only if, that Church is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. If not, C cannot be a theological development, but only an intellectual development (theologoumena). The distinction is important, because if C is not a theological development, I have no reason to of necessity submit my intellect to it. If it is an intellectual development, then it is possible that I have a ground to either prima facie reject it or upon analysis reject it. Assuming C is an intellectual development, than C would be as open for debate and tenuous as any conclusion of any science. However, if C is a real theological development--vis-a-vis a work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church--then it is worthy of the full powers of my intellect to figure out how the propositions cohere, motivated--of course--by faith. 

(2) What mistake is made when one prima facie rejects theological development?

I am sure it has become clear by now, when one rejects prima facie a theological development (i.e., has an intuition), the error made is to equate the intellectual and the theological. Certainly, theology is fitting the intellect and is in no way against reason. However, theology is not the product of just rational actions. Some "theologians" would be happy to admit to contrary, since theology to some is merely an intellectual game. However, serious followers of Christ--people of faith--do not think theology is an intellectual game.

The question still lingers as to whether a Church promulgation is either (a) a theological development, (b) an intellectual development or (c) a novelty or innovation of either. The question regarding (a) or (b) comes down to how faith informs one's understanding of the role of Church in understanding divine revelation. In fact, one might say that to a Protestant, theological development is impossible if Church councils are subject to the motives of intellectual scrutiny of non-theological (i.e., of divine origin) texts. On the one hand you would have Scripture (revelation), on the other hand intellectual opining. Thus, the efforts of the later would never bring to bare authoritatively or definitively on the former (this, in effect, will result in the absolute primacy of the will--something I will write about later).

How we consider a Church promulgation in relationship to a development is also informed by faith, but can be corroborated by the work--not intuition--of the intellect. This is simply to say that theological truth is not against or contrary to intellectual or observational truth (the later of which being the most tenuous). Therefore, it is reasonable that we would do the work of comparing those propositions and asking ourselves the question:

"Is this idea repugnant to the being of this other idea?"

Considering the motive and/or ground of this act, we find that when considering passages of Scripture in relationship to each other--most Protestants are apt to do this kind of work. They will work very hard to see how the propositions are compatible--and the result is good work evidencing the wisdom of God. Thus, the theologian notices the unfolding nature of God's wisdom in relationship to our limited vantage and the internal logic of God's communication in relationship to his unfolding plan of salvation in history. So, I ask: Why can't these same powers be exercised on Catholic dogma? I argue that it is motivation that is at issue not content. The same reason the atheist rejects the Bible, the non-Catholic rejects Catholic dogma. At least that is my prima facie intuition. Well, then again, maybe I have thought about it a little.

Because everyone really believes in development of doctrine. 

They just don't want to.

"Development of doctrine is
from the DEVIL!"