Surprising origins and what we can learn
There are many phrases with religious roots that have become part of everyday language. My favourite is devil’s advocate. Today when we use that phrase, we usually mean we’re taking the opposite side of an argument. And often we take that side not because we believe it but to make a better argument.
It may surprise you to learn the term originated as the colloquial title for a specific office in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church’s process for determining who is admitted to its list of holy figures (commonly called saints) is a rigorous one.
In 1588, in response to criticisms during the Protestant Reformation, Pope Sixtus V established the Holy Congregation of Rites, which had as one of its tasks the responsibility to collect, disseminate and weigh the evidence for future would-be saints.
At the heart of this process, sup porters would need to provide irrefutable evidence their candidate for sainthood had sent at least two miracles from heaven (one for beatification and another for canonization). The Church had to rule out any possible scientific explanation to recognize a miracle as legitimate.
The individual who oversaw the Church’s side of the investigation was known as the Promoter of the Faith (Promotor Fidei). This person was responsible for finding other possible explanations for these allegedly miraculous occurrences and, as a result, became known colloquially as the devil’s advocate.
Using reason, logic and science, the devil’s advocate evaluated the evidence. If there were any scientific explanations, the Church would dismiss the miracle, sending the would-be saint’s supporters back to the proverbial drawing board.
Taking an antagonistic position toward a particular candidate for sainthood could give the impression the investigator was arguing against the Church, therefore advocating for the devil (hence the title). But in reality this office served an essential role in the Church – the devil’s advocate defended the Church’s best interests by protecting it from embarrassing mistakes and preserving the integrity of the faith.
While today devil’s advocate might call to mind someone spoiling for a fight, that wasn’t the purpose of this office. The investigator’s sole job was to protect the Church. To my knowledge there isn’t an evangelical – or even Protestant – equivalent to this office, but nevertheless I think we can learn much from the concept.
I recognize not all Christians share this theological interpretation of saints (I don’t), and I’m not suggesting we adopt the canonization process. Instead, I think this principle has a much wider application – our churches need thinking people who can lovingly engage with it from within and protect it from embarrassing criticisms. We need insiders who can evaluate like outsiders. We need people who will play devil’s advocate.
What are the things distracting our churches from fulfilling their obligations to the Kingdom of God? Are we, as believers, really doing our best to honour Him and live out the gospel in our day-to-day lives? Or are we getting distracted by frivolous things? Moreover, are we letting these distractions corrupt the message the Church was put on earth to spread? For the sake of Christ’s bride, we need devil’s advocates in our midst.
Taylor Murray is an instructor of Christian history and creative producer of distributed learning at Tyndale University in Toronto. Read more at FaithToday.ca/HistoryLesson.