TIM CHALLIES: “We Are Saints Who Have No Need of Saints.”
The popular pastor/writer/blogger has many issues with the canonization of Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Preliminary clarification for Christian and non-Christian readers alike: A saint in Christian theological terminology refers to anyone who is properly “in Christ”. The ancient traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, formally declare — canonize — some physically deceased Christians of particular holiness and perseverance, as saints, recognizing their now full communion with God. Much like the formal declaration/recognition of holy books or letters as the Word of God (i.e., the Bible), canonization is the Church’s approval for Catholic and Orthodox Christians to commune confidently with a physically deceased person in prayer and request the saint’s intercessory prayer to God on their behalf .
It’s been 18 years since Mother Teresa of Calcutta (Kolkata), the popular nun who dedicated her life to divine charity, and to one of the world’s poorest slums, passed away of heart failure at 87. She was a figure who transcended Christian theological divides, as such an explicit life of love tends to do. Both Catholics and Protestants are often proud to display quotes of Teresa, and it’s not uncommon for both to use saintly terms to describe her.
Of course, many Protestants cry foul at such a “mythological” take on Teresa. Tim Challies — well known social media aficionado and Reformed pastor — has been publicly doing so for at least 13 years. He writes that her legacy is “little more than fiction.” The fiction reaches further than her Catholicism for the reformer. He slanders her character and care for the poor as well.
Christopher Hitchens, polemicist and anti-theist of the first order, ironically finds a Teresa-smearing friend in Challies. Hitchens wrote a book titled, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, where he seeks to tear Teresa and her work down in every way possible. Throughout the Toronto pastor’s own hit piece, Challies both proudly quotes from Hitchens’ book without qualification, and encourages his readers to purchase the book in full from Amazon without qualification. Rarely are Hitchens’ ideas so uncritically affirmed by a popular Evangelical; a curious partnership. Either way, I’m not writing here to criticize or defend Teresa’s social work — a complex discussion for another day.
I am writing to criticize the words of Tim Challies. On Wednesday, a tweet of his got my attention:
As you can see in the New York Times headline he shares, Pope Francis recently approved what was the last barrier standing in the way between Teresa and announced a September declaration of sainthood. Challies took it as an opportunity to deride the nun’s beloved Church yet again, inferring God was waiting for Francis’ decision as to whether or not he (God) could “declare” Teresa a saint. Another of his followers replied in succinct agreement without any correction from Challies:
Besides the obvious misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine to his near 50k Twitter followers, due to either honest mistake, ignorance, or ill will (I really hope it’s not this one), Challies’ snarky certainty of his own ultimate sainthood practically begged for a reply. I couldn’t resist the provocation:
The reason Challies can feel so confident is not because some biblical verse asserts “Tim Challies is one of the elect saints.” It doesn’t. His confidence depends on his Calvinism, which may be a true interpretive tradition, or not.
…mysteriously unheard of until the early sixteenth century.
Whether or not true, Calvinism is relatively new. The central piece of Calvin’s puzzle, which provided predecessor Martin Luther the confidence for theological revolution, and follower Challies such unadulterated confidence today, is mysteriously unheard of until the early sixteenth century. Protestant scholar Alister McGrath has shown the distinctive elements Challies relies on to be historically novel and having no “forerunners” prior to Luther (Iustitia Dei, 187). Other Protestants, such as John Frame, are left scratching their heads as to why such central theological elements are absent in the writings of those who knew the apostles and their direct followers personally (A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, 87). While still more, like N.T. Wright, argue those same elements to be exegetically bankrupt anyways, nevermind new or old (Paul and the Faithfulness of God; Justification).
Point of my tweet: Challies’ relatively novel soteriology (theology of salvation) is what gives him the confidence to bestow sainthood on himself in a final and ultimate sense.
Apparently my own snarkiness begged for a reply as well, since oddly enough, he did:
I was quite positive Challies was smart enough to know how creepily subjective that sounds and/or how it reduces to an equivocation, hence the smiley face. Because of that, I in turn replied with a smiley-face-sort of tweet:
Equivocation in this context refers to a fallacious rhetorical move in order to avoid the substance of my tweet. It’s commonly defined as the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid an unsightly commitment. I say “your theology” and he replies “my God.” Almost as if his formulation is less subjective in some sense. “My God,” though, is equivalent to, “God as I see him through the theology I believe is correct.” Reduce the unnecessary semantics and one gets: “my theology.” There’s the dictionary equivocation. And as I said, I’m ok with it. :) It would mean he agreed — substantively at least — with my initial revision.
Challies never did reply. :( But he did write a related piece on Teresa’s canonization which came out a day and a half later. No, I’m not delusional enough to think my pin prick had anything to do with it. That being said, his piece does clarify some of his own misrepresentations. He acknowledges — and makes clear this time — the Catholic Church’s process of canonization “is not meant to make a saint, but to recognize one.” Quite the difference from a muddled, “I’m thankful it didn’t take 2 miracles and a papal decree for God to declare me a saint,” 36 hours earlier.
The Reformed blogger goes on to explain why a formal declaration of sainthood is important to the Catholic or Orthodox Christian. The Church’s declaration gives the Christian epistemic confidence and formal permission to commune with and ask for prayer from the saint. Hopefully the value of such a reality should be apparent if true. Same goes for prayer in general.
Another sentence screaming to be successfully misinterpreted by the anti-Catholic wing of his readership…
Challies then attempts to summarize the “benefit” of sainthood for the Catholic, “[D]ead saints benefit the living faithful by being available to them for intercession.” Another sentence screaming to be successfully misinterpreted by the anti-Catholic wing of his readership. (For what it’s worth: My own Facebook feed lights up with Challies shares when Catholics are the target.) To be clear, “dead saints” aren’t really dead at all. Though their body dies and decays, they are more fully alive than the “living faithful” according to Christian eschatology, both Catholic and Protestant alike.
Perhaps the most disconcerting section of Challies’ piece, and most revealing, is his final exhortation to fellow Protestants:
How do we, as Protestants, think well about all of this [sainthood stuff — my addition]? So much could be said…But perhaps we can at least say this: We are saints who have no need of saints. We are the saints of God who have no need for the intercession of saints who have gone before.
If I’m being blunt, those Enlightenment influenced, individualistically arrogant words come off as repulsive. He means well, I know. He means to say something like, “Luther and Calvin figured it all out, so stop pretending the prayers of saints — especially those who are dead — mean anything regarding your salvation or life and cling to the truth of the great reformers’ theology.”
Challies’ Calvinism, and Reformation (loosely defined) views in general, have a respectable logic, no doubt. Yet, the Bible makes it perfectly clear why Catholic and Orthodox Christians have thought, and continue to think, what they do. It also makes clear why the Reformed pastor’s cherished lynchpin view was, and still is, absent from the ancient Church.
Here are a few samples:
Command to Make Intercession for All People
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…
1 Timothy 2
RELEVANT TAKEAWAY(S):
- Intercession and mediation are not used synonymously.
- One can pray for, or intercede for, another without being their mediator.
Salvation through members of the Church, Concrete Efficacy of Prayer, Confession, etc.
Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working… My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James 5
RELEVANT TAKEAWAY(S):
- Intercessory prayer can save through the power of God. Therefore sins should be confessed and prayers should be made on behalf of others.
- The prayer of a righteous person has even greater power.
- Believers can wander away from the truth, and other believers can bring him or her back.
- One’s soul can be saved from death by the intercession of others.
- SIDENOTE: Makes all the more sense why Martin Luther found James non-apostolic, sub-biblical, and called it an “epistle of straw.”
The Delivery of Prayers by the Saints in Heaven
Between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
Revelation 5
RELEVANT TAKEAWAY(S)
- Elders (saints) receive and deliver the prayers of other saints to the Lamb.
- SIDENOTE: Luther saw Revelation as non-apostolic and sub-biblical as well. His spirit could not accommodate itself to the book, among other of his problems (He didn’t see Jesus in it — code for his own theology of Jesus.). Therefore, he felt that was “reason enough not to think highly of it” (Preface to Revelation, 1522). Luther continued praying to Mary and the saints early into his formal protest (1517). But by 1522, same time as his written rejection (coincidental?) of James and Revelation, along with other previously accepted books and letters, it seems he was already beginning the journey toward full condemnation of the practice.
The Delivery of Prayers by the Angels in Heaven
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.
Revelation 8
RELEVANT TAKEAWAY(S)
- Angels receive and deliver the prayers of saints to the altar of God.
The Body of Christ and Each Member’s Need of One Another
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body… For the body does not consist of one member but of many… The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
1 Corinthians 12
RELEVANT TAKEAWAY(S)
- All Christians (including those who have passed on) are members of Christ’s mystical body by virtue of baptism.
- Each member needs the other members and cannot say otherwise.
TIM CHALLIES: “We are saints who have no need of saints.”
What are we to make of Tim Challies’ claim in light of these passages? In some narrowly philosophical, idiosyncratic, and uncontroversial sense, his assertion can be salvaged. Saints are not self-existent, nor are they the one mediator. They require something outside of themselves to provide existence, and they too require the one mediator. Therefore, we are saints who have no “need” of saints. I hope Challies isn’t trying to make such an irrelevant and obvious point within a piece on the canonization of saints and dismissal of the historic Christian theology surrounding it.
My hunch is he means it in a way the Bible and over two millennia of theological tradition contradicts.
THE BIBLE: “We are saints who have need of saints.”
Yes, God is the self-existent creator, and as such every creature properly finds its needs met in and through him alone. Yes, of course there is only one mediator, Jesus Christ. Yes, only to God alone is worship due. All Catholic and Orthodox teaching holds to this.
We need the Father. We need Christ. We need the Holy Spirit. We need the Church. We need the Scripture. We need the saints. We need the angels.
Here’s what I’m trying to get at. It’s not one thing or the other. It’s not Jesus or the saints. It’s not Jesus or the Father. It’s not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. It’s not Jesus or the Bible. It’s not Jesus or Mary. It’s not Jesus or the angels. It’s not Jesus is God or Jesus is man. On and on. The biblical writers and Church Fathers didn’t think that way. It always was and still is — I affirm — a both-and; a package deal. We need the Father. We need Christ. We need the Holy Spirit. We need the Church. We need the Scripture. We need the saints. We need the angels. There are essentially hierarchical, paradoxical, and mysterious relationships. But this is what the written and unwritten tradition handed on (2 Thess. 2:15).
Bishop Robert Barron says it much better than I:
Tim Challies. Another theologian disassembling my own Protestantism from within. Maybe, as a gesture of thanks this coming September, I’ll ask then Saint Teresa of Calcutta to pray for him. :)
For me as well.
