Truth Unites - Relics: A Protestant Critique

Episode Date: November 10, 2021

One of the issues that divides Catholics and Protestants is the veneration of relics. But many people are unfamiliar with the exact nature of the Protestant concern. Here I try to lay out a basic overview of what motivates Protestants on this topic. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus, hosted by Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) author and Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites | One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth... FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesP... Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

What was the original Protestant concern about relics? I think the answer to that will be surprising for people, including for a lot of Protestants. So I want to make a video about this. This will not be super exhaustive, but just a basic overview. If you're new to my channel, you know that I'm working through various issues in what you might call ecumenical theology, Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic differences, especially, and trying to give an ironic approach, a friendly approach, but also a principled Protestant approach. especially trying to retrieve kind of classical Protestant views on these things. So this is one of the issues I've been studying lately, and I'm not an expert on it, but I want to give an overview, not so much trying to convince everyone on the other side, but more, hopefully, I mean, to some extent, I want to give a defense of Protestant views, but my greater interest is more just furthering the conversation, you know, explaining, clarifying, what is

a Protestant view exactly? Because I think a lot of people probably haven't necessarily looked into the historic Protestant sources. In fact, I'm pretty sure based upon just what I gather that a lot of times people haven't looked at the historic Protestant views. So most of us know what relics are. I'll put up some pictures in just a second. Relics are when there's a physical object, especially like the bones or body parts of a saint or martyr that have been kept and they have some kind of spiritual value and often they

are venerated. That's really the key that makes it a relic. The Catholic Church, this video will be mainly about Catholic views because that's where the Protestants are responding to. Of course, there's other traditions that have relics, but the Catholic Church has three classes of relics. So first-class relics would be like, you know, the bones of a martyr or something like that. Second-class relics would be other objects, clothing, a crucifix, something that they utilize, something like that. And there's third-class relics, which are things that have come into contact with those. So some examples of

relics I'll put up here. Just to, not in a negative way. I actually am shying away from one of the pictures of Ambrose's teeth that I thought would be a little provocative because I'm not trying to reflect negatively just by the pictures, but just for the sake of interest in this, here's chains, which are kept at a church in Rome. Hopefully if you look kind of front and center there, you can see where they are kept in the middle of this picture. Here's Thomas Aquinas' left arm. This is one of the things that happens. You start talking about this and people get a little grossed out at times, but I'm going to try to defend them. from that particular concern.

That's at a church in Naples. Here's, I'll show a more distant picture of the body of Ambrose and another Christian there in Milan, where he ministered. You can get a closer shot if you want to do a Google search yourself. And it is a little jarring sometimes to see these images of skeletal remains and so forth. But let me start by saying what a Protestant concern isn't.

The Protestant concern is not, first of all, an emotional or aesthetic concern about it being gross. I know that that is kind of the first feeling some people have, of course. That's not really the Protestant concern though. Second, the Protestant concern is not that God cannot use relics. So as a Protestant myself, and I'm in line with the historic Protestants on saying, I'm open-minded about some of the miracle stories. I don't know. I'm open to God using relics to accomplish miracles. Some of the stories, Like if you read the classic Protestant voices on this, someone like Martin Kemnitz in his, the Lutheran theologian responding to the Council of Trent, he has a section on relics.

And he talks about it. He's like, you know, some of these miracles may be legitimate that people like Ambrose and Augustine are talking about. Augustine's got a fascinating story of two people who were cursed by their mother, brother and sister, touching relics and being healed on a Sunday morning. So it's like, if you trust St. Augustine, you know, right there in front of a bunch of witnesses. You could maybe explain that as well. It wasn't a healing.

It was something else. There's ways you could do that. But I think Protestants like myself, we need to be careful not to be overly skeptical. And as I'm going to point out, we do have some biblical precedent that I'll address later for God using physical objects to do a miracle. So the Protestant concern is not that God cannot or does not do that. I would just want to take each one on a case-by-case basis. Thirdly, the Protestant concern is not that we shouldn't use relics in any way, as though it's just bad, like we should dishonor the bones of martyrs or saints or something like that. Of course not. Sometimes you have this idea that Protestants are kind of Gnostics or quasi-nostics because the Catholics understand physicality and the importance of the body and so forth.

And you see that in their view of the Eucharist and the Protestants don't understand that or something like that. And I think that's an unfair contrast. I think that at their best, both Protestants and Catholics will read Genesis 1 and see matter is good. C.S. Lewis, you know, famously said, God made matter. He likes it. John 1, the incarnation, fundamentally alters the relationship of God and physical matter. And so we can all, we all agree on those things. We all agree on Genesis 1 and John 1. In one of my books I talk about how, you know, Genesis 1 is the first great change.

in reality because now you've got something other than God. John 1 is the second great change because now the two things, God and creation become united. And it really is amazing to kind of see those two things in parallel like that. And we should. The concern here is right, that we should have a high view of the body and physicality. The final state of things is going to be a resurrected universe, not a ghost-like state. So there's a lot we could say about that. However, I think it's totally unfair to act as though the Protestant concern about relics amounts to Gnosticism or a denial of physicality or something like that. That's really not the Protestant concern, nor is it the case that Protestants don't think we have any proper

reverence to be given to relics. If we, if somebody found the skull of St. Paul, you know, you shouldn't dishonor it. You know, you should put it in a museum. And so the Protestants would say, Original Protestants would say it's appropriate and fitting and godly to be inspired by relics and to use them for teaching purposes. But Protestants would say there's a line that we pass beyond that. And so here's what the Protestant concern is. The Protestant concern is that as church history develops, the use of relics develops and changes, and it gets to a point where it transgresses a boundary into the realm of, I'll use the words,

superstition and idolatry. Okay, let me, since those are heavy and loaded words, let me explain and unpack that and why that's the case and try to nuance this in a way that's charitable to the alternative side. I will say also in passing, there are also Protestants who have expressed concern about paganism. So they basically said some of the things, the influences for particular usages of relics are influences from pagan practices. I'm not really going to get into that. that here. And then another one of the concerns would actually be legalism. One of the Protestant classical views is that if something isn't in scripture, it doesn't mean you can't do it, but you shouldn't insist upon it. And so especially, I'll make another video about icons down

the line here a little bit, especially interfacing more with Eastern Orthodox views. And that concern comes up especially there. But I'm going to kind of pass that. Let me just focus on these two issues, because these are at the nerve center of it, idolatry and superstition. So, So I think it would be helpful to start off with some historical context, right? We cannot heal any of the divisions in Christendom if we don't understand them. And we cannot understand them if we don't see them in their context and appreciate what people were reacting against at that time and what were the on the ground pastoral realities. So, and so I'm going to list a number of things that the Protestants responding to.

I want to be clear, I'll say this now, I'll say it again. I'm not saying that all of the things I'm about to mention are official Catholic teaching. Okay? I'm not saying that. I want to be so careful not to go. Because what happens is the Protestants caricature of the Catholics by saying, look at the worst possible, most superstitious practice. Well, that's the enemy, right? And the Catholics will caricature the Protestants by saying,

oh, you know, look at what they did with the bones of polycarp. Protestants have no category for that, as though Protestants are against any usage of relics. And the truth is always more complicated. The other side is always more variegated and nuanced. And the truth is always in the more naughty middle ground where you want to be with the thoughtful people on both sides. So these are not Catholic views.

But these are some of the things that were going on. Adoring, kissing, embracing, and bowing to relics. And in many cases, thinking that this is a uniquely meritorious form of worship. making sacrifices unto relics as sacrifices unto God. Thinking that the power or grace of God inheres in relics in such a way that if you draw near to the relic or if you touch the relic, you can become a partaker of that grace or power. By the way, I'm getting these from a combination of resources,

but especially Keminets. thinking that a Eucharist celebration is more holy if it is celebrated on an altar that displays the relics of saints or martyrs. Thinking that prayer is more efficacious or more worthy if it is made near or while touching a relic so that pilgrimages are highly to be valued to visit relics for the sake of having more meritorious prayers, prayers that God is more likely to answer. Indulgences for sin being given on the basis of touching or kissing or gazing upon a relic. The belief that if you make an oath or a vow while touching a relic, the sanctity of that oath or vow is directed to both God and the saints.

Now, I can go on. I wrote out a bunch of these that I've found. These are real. Again, I'm not saying every one of those is what the Catholic Church would affirm. I'm saying those were on the ground medieval realities. And we cannot understand the Protestant concern about relics unless we understand what they're reacting against. The Protestant movement started with these things.

It's not starting responding to Trent. Trent is after responding to it. So now when you get to Trent, and here would be my concern about why I'd say, well, it's not just the abuses that are the problem. It's what's officially Catholic teaching. It's a problem. When you get to Trent in session 25, there aren't really any warning. about abuses. Maybe there are in other places of Catholic official teaching today. Well, I know

there are today, maybe at that time as well. But a part of my concern is, and where I could more easily consider becoming Catholic if Trent had genuinely incorporated and received Protestant criticisms rather than what looks to me like kind of doubling down on a lot of issues. and when it comes to these, I mean, it advocates veneration. If you get, there's basically no warnings about superstition. There's no, I don't see anything in session 25 of Trent where it's saying, okay, yeah, the Protestants have a point about this or that. Or here's the problems with relics.

There's really nothing like that. In session 26, when it gets to images and icons, there is, you still have bowing, it commends, bowing down and kissing the images. You do have a warning. There is a reference to the day. of superstition there. So there's at least a category. But I guess the way I could put the concern here is when you see someone who goes, who makes a pilgrimage from Europe all the way to the Holy Land and back, okay? This is the kind of stuff that happens. He brings dirt from the

Holy Land from the mound of the cross, where the cross, where the crucifixion of Jesus was thought to happen back, and he hangs the dirt in a container in his room to ward off demons. Okay. And then after, this is a real story. And then after a time, when the demons are gone, he plants it as a place of prayer in his garden. Or if you see people finding the tooth of a martyr and they bring it to a village to protect the village from famine

or from war. Or you see people paying enormous sums of money. I mean, the economic impact of relics in the medieval time was massive. So you see people pay enormous sums of money to be. be able to touch a relic so that they can pray for their sick child or something like that. When you see things like this, so here's, I guess, the appeal. If you think the Protestant concern is wrong, tell me where you think the boundaries are,

because I don't see them in Trent. I don't see Trent saying, here's where it passes over into superstition. Here's where it passes over into idolatry. I don't see that. So my concern, I guess, and the question I could articulate is, if you think the Protestant concern is ill-founded, where do you think the boundaries are? And I don't really see a clear sense of that. Most of the videos I see on relics, most of the books, the Catholic defenses are just commending the practice. They're not necessarily articulating

when does it become misappropriated or misused. Now, one of the points I want to speak to here is the historical record, because frequently Catholic defenses of relics will say these have been practiced from the earliest of times, not practiced. These have been honored and utilized from the earliest of times. And I think that we have to go further than that. So a lot of times you'll just see people quote Jerome, for example, who's opposing vigilanteous and affirming relics, and then they'll point to other church fathers, Ambrose, Augustin, many others who saw a proper role for relics.

And then they'll sort of act as though, well, that settles the matter. Relics are continuous throughout church history. And I want to argue that there's a development. And so to really get into where the differences lie, again, we got to press into the space of sympathetically trying to understand how the other side sees it. So Protestants watching this video, you should really try to sympathetically understand why people believe in the power of relics and what is the valid role of them. You shouldn't just be dismissive of that. But Catholics also, if all you do is say, oh, Protestants don't believe in relics, relics have always been utilized in church history, case closed, open and shut, period, end of discussion.

It's like, well, we haven't even gotten into the interesting discussion. The interesting discussion is what is the proper role of relics? All these early Protestants I'm reading, they're saying there's a role for relics. It's good to honor them, for example. It's good to pay respect to them, for example. It's good to use them for teaching and inspiration, for example. But the question is, where is that boundary? And then the question is, how do things develop?

Because there's a massive difference between the way relics are functioning with like polycarp, for example, or in the early, you know, the second-sacenance. century, the third century, the context of martyrdom, persecution, when people are honoring the bones of martyrs knowing that I might be next, you know, this is very different from in the 13th century or the 14th century, someone making a vast pilgrimage, paying a huge sum of money and thinking that this will make my prayers hurt. This will obtain help from God. And so there's a boundary there. You got from point A to point B. You got from one kind of thing to another. And the Protestant concern is somewhere in there, you've crossed a boundary. And this is no

longer edifying and godly and what Jesus would want us to do. So one could make an argument that from point A to point B, it's a legitimate development. But we've got to get into that. You can't just kind of gloss over the development and the differences. For example, the whole distinction, first class, second class, third class relics, that takes time to develop. You really don't see second class relics early on. That's like more fourth and 5th century. Early on, it's just first-class relics. All the various usages, I mean, by the time you get to the late medieval era, there has mushroomed up this whole cult of saints in their relics, and it's just gotten overrun. And people need to sympathetically try to understand

why this was so concerning to Protestants, because it really had become full of superstition. You can see as it's developing, even the Church Fathers, giving warnings about superstition. It's not as though everyone was fully on board with relics in every way. So Augustine, for example, will affirm a proper role for relics, but he'll also give strong and frequent warnings about superstition. And he'll talk about the dangers of adoring images or adoring sepulchres, or, you know, people would go and have a feast near the tomb of a martyr and think that this sanctified the food, or they would think that their prayers were more efficacious there. A lot of these things that Guston gives rebukes to and says they're too superstitious.

He's very clear, for example, on, you need to know that God will, God can answer your prayers from any location. It's not like your prayers are going to be more efficacious while you're touching the relic, that kind of thing. So there are, there is development, there is pushback against some of the developments, and the development's pretty radical, you know, from the earliest of practices to what you're seeing in the late medieval era. And I'm not an expert on this. I don't want to try to take a real strong stand on exactly how you should understand that historical interpretation. But I think it's at least useful to say we've got to get into the history. And the case would need to be made that these later developments with respect to relics are an authentic development out of the earlier practices.

And that would be the concern is that no, this is the Protestant concern. No, at some point in there, Protestants might differ one from another at where that point is. but at some point in there, when you're getting to the kind of practices that, especially when you get, so, you know, kissing and bowing down to the relic, okay? That's not happening in the second century. That's not happening in the third century. To my knowledge, I don't really see that very much until you get later on. Certainly with the emphasis upon it and how widespread it became. So the question would be, the concern would be, when you start doing that, this distinction, distinction between worship and veneration. Conceptually, that's clear, but practically that often devolves into not much of a distinction.

And the Protestant concern is that a boundary gets crossed in there. You go from a legitimate respect into superstition and idolatry. Now, someone can disagree with that. No, it doesn't get idolatrous or superstitious at all. I think that's a hard case to make. I think the most interesting discussion is to say, where does that boundary get crossed? And that's why I would say for people who believe in, say, a Catholic perception of relics today, tell me where the boundaries are. If you don't think we are

right to think that in the medieval era you've transgressed into superstition, when does that happen? What are the boundaries? And I don't really actually get a clear conception of that, at least in the popular level defenses. I'm sure there's other things out there. But let me touch upon the Bible as well. This is where we ultimately... So the Protestant criticism is, throughout church history, in its development, it crosses a boundary.

The other Protestant criticism would be that in Holy Scripture, there's really nothing exactly like a contemporary Catholic practice of relics. So the claim often is here that you've got Peter's shadow healing people, you've got Paul's handkerchiefs healing people, and you've got the body of Elisha in 2nd King's 13,

when a man is falling into his tomb and touches him, he's revived. And so people use passages like this to argue for relics. Again, I want to say the more interesting discussion is when you press into that and really kind of grapple with the differences, because I would argue that none of these things really are comparable to the Catholic practice of relics, or the Catholic view of what relics are and how we should treat them in the veneration of relics. That's commended at Trent.

Peter and Paul being living apostles being used by God in miraculous ways is different, and there is some dispute about the shadow. Does Luke actually say people were healed by it or was, but let's leave that aside. That's different from people collecting the bones of Peter and Paul or anyone else after they're dead and thinking that there's some kind of veneration owed to them or help we may obtain from them. And pretty consistently throughout Scripture, we see the practice is simply. simply burial. John the Baptist, what happens? They don't collect his bones. He's buried. Stephen, he's buried. All throughout the Old Testament. People are not, even the episode with Elisha there, you know, it's not as though this was a regular custom. It catches people by

surprise. There's a marauding group that comes in so they throw the guy in there and then it's, he's revived. Now, nobody after this happens, it's not like, you know, there was an ongoing practice of throwing people into the tomb of Elisha are using, nor after this happens, does anyone say that we should exhum the bones of Elisha and elevate them and parade them and have people kiss them and bow down before them and, you know, honor them with candles and veneration and obtain help from them and that kind of thing. Such a practice is utterly alien to Scripture. People just get buried. We honor their bodies and hope of the glorification of the body at the final resurrection, but we don't dig out and utilize their bones or other physical objects related to them. That's just

not what we see in the Bible. And the kinds of examples with Peter's Shadow and the handkerchiefs of Paul and the bones of Elisha just really are so different from a Catholic understanding of relics. So what I would say to make kind of three final appeals here is, number one, at the very, kind of how do we advance the conversation here? Number one, I would say, don't say Protestants are Gnostics or that we don't value the body or physicality. That could be true in certain cases. That's not necessarily true of Protestants, and it's certainly not the basis of our concern

with relics. That's really not fair. Nor do we deny that there's any role for relics in terms of teaching. inspiration and an object of respect. But we just think that it transgresses a boundary past that. Number two, if you do believe in relics, give us a sense of where you would set the boundaries. When do you think superstition that is unhelpful and ungodly does happen? Where do you think it does pass over into idolatry? If you just quote Second Kings 13 and Jerome, we, that's not enough. You know, it would advance the conversation to at least show

show a sensitivity to the concern that is on the table here, which I think is a pretty reasonable concern. Look at what's going on throughout the medieval era. And then lastly, let me say the underlying impulse to get at the heart of things behind the Protestant concern. And that is that, you know, it's one thing to come in with, at the technical level and defend a practice. But looking at the on the ground practical net effect, the Protestant concern is that relics ultimately and generally serve the purpose of directing our focus away from what we already have and need. So we believe that we can go directly to God through the merits of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit from any place at any time and he hears and answers our prayers.

Now, I think a Catholic could agree with that so far as that goes. But again, not looking at the technicalities but the practical effect, the Protestant concern is the pretty pretty consistent danger in church history is the effect of this is it draws people's focus away from that and onto this physical object. So part of the presupposition behind a Protestant concern is the human heart does tend toward idolatry. We do tend to veer off track. And instead of seeking what we need from God himself, we look to visible objects, we look

to other things. Look, I'm a Baptist pastor. I see that in my Baptist low church context. People think that if I was baptized, then I'm saved. Or people think, you know, people get superstitious about wearing a cross or something like that. There's a proper use for physical objects in various ways, but we should not be so naive as to be, to not be alert to the ever-present danger of looking to physical objects in an unhealthy way. And the Protestant concern is that these things are not, these things in their practical on-the-ground, consequence tend to draw us away from the sufficiency of Christ in the gospel to direct us and

mediate to us the way to God who is alone the source of our worship and ultimate help. And so the concern with relics isn't just a negative thing of don't do that, but it's a, oh no, this is going to obscure how wonderful it is what we do have. And I know Catholics will say, ah, but it's a both-hand. You know, it's not such an either-or. Well, sometimes it isn't either or. Sometimes something can become a replacement for God. That's what idolatry is.

And so hopefully someone, a Catholic person watching this video, could at least understand conceptually the nature of that concern. Hey, thanks for watching this. I know this is kind of a tough topic, so let me know if you think I've been unfair in some way. I'm trying to give a defense of a Protestant way and a clarification of a Protestant way of looking at it. But if I've in some way misrepresented the Catholic perspective,

feel free to let me know in the comments. We're all learning. None of us are omniscient. None of us are perfect and see everything. But that's genuinely kind of a heartfelt appeal on kind of what my concern is on this issue. Hey, thanks for watching. God bless you.