MARTY’S GONE
Living in western Pennsylvania and spending lots of hours commuting to and from church, Jeannie and I listened to the local Christian radio station, 101.5 WORD-FM (Pittsburgh). Like most Christian radio, it was usually made up of fluff, but we grew to enjoy the Marty Minto Show. It was a local Christian talk radio show, where Minto would tackle issues of politics, theology, culture, etc. And it was usually from a pretty biblical perspective.
So I was discouraged to read this post from James White this morning, reporting that Minto was fired by the station (which is owned by Salem Radio) for raising the question of whether John Paul II went to heaven. White’s assesment is right on when he says, “Roman Catholic theology itself raises that question, but so-called “evangelicalism” cannot even allow the question to be raised, let alone discussed in a meaningful fashion! What an incredible insight into just how far “evangelicalism” has fallen from the evangel!”
You can read this local news report to get a little more perspective; and to read the station manager’s sorry reason for Minto’s dismissal.
My fear is that the decision was made more out of concern for revenue and ratings than out of conscience - Pittsburgh has a huge Catholic population, many of whom are listeners of WORD-FM. Even if that was no motivation in the station’s decision, it is still a shameful move.
April 15th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
As … if Roman Catholicism were just another legitimate Christian denomination?
April 15th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
I found an interesting article in this week’s SOUTHEAST OUTLOOK. It was about a guy who is a swimmer at Notre Dame University in South Bend, IN. I wish I had the article in front of me so I could quote him, but he basically said that he thought Catholicism was another “religion” until he went to ND, but now he sees them as just another “denomination.” I really couldn’t believe that Southeast Christian Church was allowing this to be published. It really disappointed me. I know some great things are going on at Notre Dame because of the presence of Alvin Plantinga and a couple of other Evangelicals, but it shouldn’t have led this young man to equivocate Catholicism with other Evangelical denominations. Are Evangelicals being swayed by a dead man’s legacy?
D.R.
April 16th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Matt,
I’ve been in communication for a couple days with a guy from Salem Communications, and though I’m not letting him off the hook, he has assured me that contrary to what you’re hearing (and what is being voiced over the internet), there is more to Marty’s firing than meets the press. Now…there are still some very real questions—and I’m hopeful that this case can be a catalyst to some very necessary discussion; it’s funny, at my blog, in my ongoing “Laodicea Chronicles” posts, I was getting ready to talk about this whole area next week. But after this email discussion with a higher-up at Salem, I’m going to measure twice before I cut once in talking about the Minto case. Out.
April 17th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
beyond radio politics - when is it beneficial to question whether or not someone made it into heaven? the pope testified to the same creed christians have been reciting for centuries. and who am i to judge the devoutness of his confession? before i question someone else’s salvation, when he has made this confession and exhibited the fruit of the spirit in his life, i ought to stop and pray that God would have mercy on my own soul.
April 18th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Marty Minto Fired for Sharing the Gospel
The day probably began for Marty Minto like any other. The evangelical Christian and radio talk show host was doing what many other Christians was discussing the death of Pope John Paul II. A caller asked Minto if he thought the pope was going to heave…
April 18th, 2005 at 9:34 am
on another take, this is the problem that evangelicalism will continue to run into–so long as it keeps an uniquivocal stance towards other denominations, the wheels stay on, but when it begins to question its tenets, particularly in terms of soteriology, problems start to crop up.
April 18th, 2005 at 9:36 am
I hope we would not speak of it as “making it” to heaven - that seems to imply a works-righteousness which we are all prone to. The issue raised by Minto was simply the one raised by a number of evangelicals throughout the past few weeks. If John Paul II was trusting in Christ alone by faith alone for the forgiveness of sin and hope of life everlasting, then he certainly is with Christ. But if he was trusting in his own “collaborative efforts” with divine grace, or in the intercession of Mary, to finally justify him, then we must humbly say that he was of another gospel. There is no room for boasting for any of us in this discussion… and I do hope that John Paul II had indeed rested from his own works and trusted Christ fully (as I believe many Catholics do). And as you said, may God have mercy on us all.
April 18th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
i obviously agree with you that many catholics have saving faith, matt. thanks for the grace with which that statement was offered.
my belief that many catholics have saving faith makes catholicism, to me, “a legitimate christian denomination” - at least as legitimate as any denomination. when we make denominational affiliation the root of a discussion on salvation, we are on a slippery slope. that’s all.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
I think that the beliefs of the Catholic Church keep it from being a Christian “denomination.” Now, I was not suggesting that all in the Catholic church are unregenerated, but I do think that the Church is a great detriment to their spiritual life. The Church, as a whole, has led many astray and has stifled numerous others. They have held (and still do) many false doctrines such as the veneration of Mary, the dual authority of Scripture and tradition, and the belief that They hold the keys to the kingdom. While many churches have snippets of false teaching, no other group that one could consider “Christian” holds to as many heterodoxical or heretical positions as does the Catholic Church. Certainly we would not call the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses “Christian denominations.” Neither should we the Catholic Church. It is a religion. I am just thankful that God in His mercy has given saving faith to many within it.
D.R.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
but is Catholicism ‘another’ religion, i.e. not a Christian one? that to me seems an arrogant position.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Without addressing that question specifically, I submit that the Catholic Church’s understanding of itself (and of everyone in the world) is a bit arrogant. All Christians and all religious people who have made a real connection to God through general revelation and their own cultural expressions of religion, are Catholics even though they don’t realize it. We’re all under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. A whole lot of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and whatever else are not only “anonymous Christians” but are also anonymous Catholics! For some reason, I seriously doubt that a committed Muslim would consider that a loving thing to say to him. As for me personally, I certainly don’t care a bit whether or not they consider me to be in or out of fellowship with the Bishop of Rome.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
aaron, that rahnerian position you refer to with the “anonymous christian” a) is not the orthodox Catholic position and b) misunderstands Rahner. as for the Catholic claim that all Christians who are not Catholic are “theologically deficient” as teh new pope has said, i’ll tend to differ with him,but to call Catholics something other than Christian is a grave error. Luther was a Catholic, as was Calvin, and we dismiss their heritage at our own risk.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
I am not sure how it is “arrogant” to hold to a traditional position of Protestantism. The Reformers left the Catholic church because of the Church’s refusal to leave their unBiblical practices and heinous practices of indulgences (which, by the way, continue to this day, albeit in a restricted format), their belief in the sovereignty of the Pope, despite much evidence that suggested that many were corrupt, and their insistence on persecuting men like Jon Hus and others who dared to go against the Church. Remember that the Catholic Church perpetuated the Crusades as well.
Now, I realize that the Catholic Church is no longer involved in persecution, but it still holds to many of the unBiblical positions for which Luther first indicted them, and about which Calvin debated Cardinal Sadoleto. Hence, it is the Catholic Church who has remained stubborn about its positions. Furthermore, the position on the Catholic Church has continued to slide toward liberalism with the changes brought about with Vatican II. And although the official position of the Church is not that of Rahner’s, they do hold to a pessimistic inclusivism regarding those of differing religions, yet they still believe that informed objectors of the Catholic Church will indeed not enter into heaven. That’s arrogant, if you ask me.
D.R.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
By the way, according to official Catholic teaching, you and I are headed to hell because we know this about the Church and yet still refused to join.
D.R.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
eh, i don’t know about that. wasn’t it JPII who called Protestants “separated brethren”, to say that we are the body of Christ and yet not in the same church? i think the teaching you refer to is more of those that have heard the Gospel and not come to the church, not Protestants. that seems to be a misreading.
as for the unbiblical positions of the Catholic church, we all know that protestants are just as prone to such positions and doctrines, namely the protestant misunderstanding of ’sola scriptura’, which divorces tradition and Scripture in a way that the early church knew nothing of. that’s another issue altogether, but an example of Protestant error. or if you don’t buy that example, we could go with the exclusive emphasis on individual salvation/calling, voluntarist ecclesiology, or allegiance to the state as part of a Christian calling. both Catholics and Protestants have their errors, but one doesn’t make the other more accurate.
April 19th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
The authority of Rome over all religious people in the world is all over Catholic doctrine. I just heard it in Ratzinger’s own words today from a paper he wrote a while back. The Catholic Church is very inclusivistic, but still maintains that all salvation is mediated through the Catholic Church. Therefore, the salvation of those who are outside the church must come by means of some kind of unknown connection that we have to it.
April 19th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
“You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from is Corban’ (that is, given to God)–then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” — Mark 7:8-13
The early church knew nothing of sola scriptura?
April 20th, 2005 at 1:32 am
Myles,
I am going to try to find you the official statement on the “separated brethren,” but suffice it to say that JPII cannot say anything officially unless the cardinals approve it and in a vote decide that he was speaking “ex cathedra.” He might have said it, but it doesn’t make it official church teaching.
Also, I don’t know what your background is and though I appreciate your graciousness and optimism that you show toward Catholics (and I agree there has been too much angst and hatred coming forth from Protestants toward Catholics in previous days), I think you may be speaking from the outside looking in. Now that is not to say that you are speaking ignorantly and I am not just launching an ad hominem attack on you, but I wonder how many people you know who have actually left the Catholic Church over their theology. Personally, I know about 60, many of which were in my church in New Orleans and now also include my wife and almost her entire family. Not one of them would tell you that they consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination. They truly believe that they were in a different religion. And further, they would tell you that it makes a difference as to how accurate one or the other is.
I know first hand what a difference that accuracy it has made in the life of my wife and her entire family.
D.R.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:09 am
not Sola Scriptura in the sense that Scripture alone is what we need for faith/practice. the early church was in the matrix of community/apostolic tradition, and not the modernist sense of the written canon as the whole thing.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Does Rome posess the marks of a true church (i.e. right ministry of Word and sacrament)? Are those biblical/helpful categories? I’d have to say no to the former and yes to the latter. Unless Rome radically alters its own understanding of revelation, it will never repudiate Trent (which I take to be antithetical to the gospel).
April 20th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
“the early church was in the matrix of community/apostolic tradition, and not the modernist sense of the written canon as the whole thing.”
Agreed (except I would dispute the phrase “community/apostolic tradition.” I would scratch “community” from that statement, because it really wasn’t about community but rather about the message. If a particular community ever strayed from the message, they were opposed or corrected by the Apostles). But that was a unique historical situation. I have contended recently on my blog that the New Testament points us in a direction toward the gradual dying off of authoritative tradition along with the Apostles as they put the gospel into writing in order to preserve it for all time.
It makes good sense to me that God would do it this way. Tradition that is left for too long inevitably begins to dominate and distort the Word of God. Jesus encountered this repeatedly in his ministry, and he always came down on the side of Scripture against tradition.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
aaron, matt, d.h.
thanks for going round on this one, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. i respect your position, however i may differ with it. yes, tradition can tend to dominate, but not the way that it is concieved by Catholics, which is not that tradition is a dead thing, but the living faith of the church. what we as protestants do is impoverish ourselves by autonomizing every body and not looking to “the great cloud of witnesses”. and no, communal reflection on the word is not a unique historical circumstance, but exactly what has happened every generation in every situation of the gospel. i reference not only the Pietists (the proto-evangelicals), but any missional event that has ever happened in church history. Communal reflection by the Spirit is intrinsic to the Gospel’s communication.
but, again, this is a point we’ll differ on. so, there we are then.
April 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Is “communal reflection by the Spirit” equal to divine revelation, or is it rather the church’s response to God’s final revelation given in Scripture? I believe it is the latter and pertains to the growth and contextualization of the church, not the ongoing historical development of a flexible gospel.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
the Orthodox make the same arguments against innovation, and guard against it accordingly by importing Greek language and culture along with the practices of the Orthodox church. Have there been outright reformulations of the Gospel within evangelical thought? absolutely. the emphasis towards reason, the populism, the the individual nature of salvation–none of these are emphasises of the early church, i.e. the 1-3rd centuries. innovation and reflection is forever a part of being faithful to the Gospel.
i think you’re positing a false divide between the community of the Spirit and revelation, for what it’s worth. if it is the Spirit working in Scripture and in the community, etc etc etc….it’s an argument i won’t get into again, but i reference Barth’s vision of the Word as being both incarnated Christ and Scripture. the early church, again, saw “the Word” as both, refusing an easy divide.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Yes, the Word is both incarnated Christ and Scripture, but it is not “community reflection.” That is what is done in response to the Word. Again, I think you are pointing to matters of contextualization and emphasis, not advances in divine revelation.