|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
|
EVANGELICALS
and CATHOLICS – DIALOGUE unto DEATH
|
By
Tom McMahon
Executive
Director ‘The Berean Call’
PART
ONE [June 2002]
Recently I returned from a conference
sponsored by the Wheaton College Graduate School Department of Bible and
Theology and InterVarsity Press. Titled "Catholics and Evangelicals in
Conversation," the event brought together 14 theologians from both
traditions, including Catholics Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago,
and Richard John Neuhaus, co-originator with Charles Colson of
"Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third
Millennium" (ECT). Leading ‘evangelicals’ included Timothy George, Dean of
Beeson Divinity School, and J.I. Packer, well-known author of Knowing God.
However, before sharing my observations concerning the significance of the
conference and the increasing influence of ECT, let me share my experiences
with the students of
First of all, I took nearly all of my meals
on campus just for the opportunity of dialoguing with students. Only a few with
whom I talked attended the conference, but all of them thought it was a very
good thing to build relationships between Catholics and evangelicals. The
closest point to an objection came from a student who felt the conference was
no more important than a "conversation between Baptists and
Methodists." That was a stunner to me. Was I talking to young people whose
thinking was the exception rather than the rule, on a campus with a widespread
reputation for being evangelical? To get a better representation, at the end of
the conference I drafted a survey and spent the afternoon roaming the campus
interviewing about 100 more students.
I asked them to categorize themselves one of
three ways: a) they knew almost nothing about Roman Catholicism; b) they had a
general understanding about what Catholics believed; or c) they were pretty
knowledgeable about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Only a few felt
they knew little about the Catholic Church; the overwhelming majority put
themselves in category "c." Then I asked, "Based upon what you
know about Roman Catholicism, do you believe Catholics need to be evangelised,
i.e., presented the biblical gospel of salvation?" Two said yes. A few
acknowledged "probably, " and one thought it wouldn't be a bad idea.
The rest responded with an emphatic no, including a young man who was a
former Catholic.
My final question (given the responses, in
retrospect it seemed inane) was this: "Have you ever had a class here in
which you were taught about Roman Catholicism, and then encouraged to witness
to Catholics?" All but one student said no. Excitedly I asked the young
man to tell me the name of the class and his professor. "Oh," he said,
"it wasn't a class it was my soccer coach!"
I rarely get depressed, but this moved me to
the fringe of that condition. Could it really be that this next generation of
evangelicals is convinced there is no significant difference between
Catholics and biblically born-again Christians? Even my talks with some
students who were attending the conference from Covenant College, Taylor
University, and Moody Bible Institute indicated a lack of real understanding of
the gospel of Rome. But how prevalent is this? (I would greatly appreciate
anyone with access to a school claiming to be evangelical to try out my survey
on campus and let me know the results.) More importantly, what might be the
consequences of such a lack of understanding among our young people? Before we
address those questions, however, let's clarify the fundamental (and
critical) difference between Roman Catholic salvation and what the Bible
teaches about salvation.
Catholic salvation, i.e., qualifying for
heaven, is a lifelong process. It begins with the sacrament of Baptism; nearly
all of one billion Roman Catholics are baptized as infants. Catholics refer to
their baptism as the sacrament through which they are "born again" or
justified and through which they first receive "sanctifying grace." This
grace is necessary in order to be eligible to earn salvation, which is
why Catholics claim to be "saved by grace alone."
The sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist,
and Confirmation are crucial to staying and growing in the state of sanctifying
grace. Also contributing to this salvation process are a host of
extra-biblical teachings and practices (liturgies, indulgences, sacramentals,
good works, sufferings, penances, rituals, prayers, Mass and Holy Day of
Obligation attendance, etc.) which are said to bolster one in grace. All that,
however, can be lost by committing a "mortal sin," which eradicates
the sanctifying grace required for entrance into heaven. If a Catholic dies
without sanctifying grace, he or she is condemned to hell for eternity. Upon confession
and a priest's absolution of a mortal sin or sins, Catholics are restored to
the state of sanctifying grace and re-justified. Upon their death they enter
purgatory, where they must be purified from all their temporal sins through
suffering its purging flames. Roman
Catholicism teaches that every person must become perfectly righteous
before he or she can enter heaven. Meritorious works and the expiation of one's
own sins contribute to one's infused righteousness necessary for eternal
life with God.
My survey of the Wheaton students did not
include details of what they knew about Roman Catholicism, so whether or
not they really comprehended the basics of Catholic salvation is uncertain. On
the other hand, if they indeed understood Rome's teachings (as most claimed),
I'm very concerned about their understanding of the biblical gospel.
The gospel of salvation as taught in the
Scriptures is exceedingly profound, yet very simple. Although created
originally in perfection and without sin, Adam and Eve nevertheless sinned
against God, bringing condemnation upon all mankind. The divine penalty imposed
upon all sinners is death, i.e., separation from God for eternity; and because
He is perfect in justice, the penalty had to be paid. Yet God is also perfect in
love and mercy; therefore He became a Man in order to save mankind through His
perfect life and substitutionary death. The Bible proclaims that all who turn
to God and by faith receive His gift of salvation are declared perfectly
righteous in His sight and will spend eternity in heaven with Him. What Christ
accomplished on the cross (being God's perfect Lamb who alone could take away
the sin of the world) is imputed to everyone who puts his trust in Him.
A number of important issues separate Roman
Catholicism from evangelical Christianity. However, the most critical issue
presents a chasm so wide that it cannot be bridged by any ecumenical span and
that is "faith."
The Bible states repeatedly and
unequivocally that a person is saved by faith and only by faith. The reason,
like the gospel itself, is simple: only Jesus, who is both God and Man, could
pay the infinite penalty required by God's justice. Faith in Him and His
finished work on the cross, then, is mankind's only means of salvation.
That is not only what the Bible teaches, but logic and reason demand the same
conclusion. What can we do to assist in something which God says He alone can
do and has done? Any such attempt to add anything to Christ's perfect atonement
is a rejection of God's salvation. Yet Roman Catholicism majors on
"finishing" the finished work of Christ. It teaches that man must
merit heaven through his own "grace-assisted" good works, sufferings,
obedience to Church laws, receiving the sacraments, expiating his own sins, and
on and on. Furthermore, the Catholic Church claims that it alone possesses the
treasury from which are dispensed the graces necessary for salvation.
Again, it troubles me deeply that our next
generation of evangelicals appears unable (or unmotivated) to discern between
the gospel Paul preached, which alone saves, and what he called "another
gospel," which can save no one. That false "gospel," by the way,
was an attempt to add circumcision to faith in order to be justified. Paul was
so troubled by this one addition that, under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, he condemned all who preach such a gospel. Yet the Catholic
Church condemns all who reject their hundreds of additions to faith which it
says are necessary for salvation!
How could this evangelical generation become
oblivious to the clear teaching of Scripture? Well, there are lots of
contributing influences. Postmodernist ideas such as "truth is
relative" and "one point of view is as valid as any other" are
prevalent in our culture and particularly in our schools; consequently, they
have been easily assimilated by evangelicals young and old. Seeking after
truth, then, hardly becomes a worthy pursuit.
Many of today's youth have been persuaded
that the division between Catholics and Protestants is the archaic product of a
past age of bigotry and ignorance. And sadly, there are still enough examples
around today to give this thesis credence. Furthermore, tolerance has been the
social rallying cry for the last decade or so, and therefore anything that
smacks of intolerance (regardless of its basis) must be avoided at the very
least. If you think this isn't typical of your own evangelical kids or their
peers, ask them if they see any problem with one of them deciding to marry a
Catholic. I can almost guarantee that their first response will not be what the
Bible says about being unequally yoked with an unbeliever, nor concern for the
Church's insistence that the children be baptized and raised Catholic. Rather,
it will be how "intolerant" (even bigoted!) it is to impose a view
that would keep apart two people who love each other. I have a few letters from
broken-hearted evangelical parents whose children decided upon such a
rationale.
However, the strongest influence regarding
the current attitude about Catholicism among sincere evangelical young people
is not from the world, but from the professing evangelical church. You would be
hard pressed to find among highly visible church leaders more than a few who
speak out against the growing ecumenical bond-building between Catholics and
evangelicals. That ratio would be very similar among evangelical pastors. It is
also rather tragic that those who understand the issues biblically fail to
address it in their churches and therefore fail their young members because of their
reluctance to "offend" by instructing them accordingly.
So who can blame this generation? Their
favourite music groups celebrate the Pope at the Catholic World Youth Day
event. The largest of the national conferences for evangelical youths and youth
pastors invites priests as the keynote speaker and a workshop leader. Catholic
parishes around the country are thrilled to have their young people participate
(there's obviously no fear that they will be converted). The hot item at one
such conference last year was introducing kids to the contemplative approach to
spirituality, a practice which draws almost entirely upon teachings of Catholic
mystics. Most of the popular parachurch ministries, rather than evangelising
Catholics, work with them as Christians. These ministries include Prison
Fellowship, the Billy Graham Association, Campus Crusade, YWAM, Promise
Keepers, InterVarsity Fellowship, and Focus on the Family.
Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, Luis Palau,
Robert Schuller, Hank Hanegraaff, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Elisabeth
Elliot, Paul and Jan Crouch, Jack Hayford, Jack Van Impe, Benny Hinn, Norman
Geisler, and a host of others have furthered the belief that although there are
differences between Catholics and evangelicals, they are after all our brothers
and sisters in Christ.
In addition to the blatant disregard for
what the Bible teaches, the organizations and individuals mentioned above
(hardly an exhaustive list) are influencing our young people (and others as
well) to abandon a billion souls in bondage to a false gospel.
Then there is ECT.
The original "Evangelicals and
Catholics Together" document was presented to the public in 1994. The
Catholic participants/signers were esteemed representatives of the Church,
including John Cardinal O'Connor and now Cardinals Francis George and Avery
Dulles. Evangelical participants/signers were also highly influential church
leaders (among them Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, Bill Bright, and
Jesse Miranda). Although there were cases of strong protest from the
evangelical community, characterizing the document as a "compromise"
and "betrayal" of the gospel, these were lost in the praises from
Christian and secular media (from Christianity Today to the Wall
Street Journal). The perception left with most people was that ECT had made
great strides in resolving the issues which "divided Christianity at the
time of the Reformation." The document itself seemed to be designed to
give that impression.
Although no information was presented from
either side to substantiate changes in doctrinal positions (which had separated
them for 450 years), nevertheless the language of the document implied
great strides forward without compromise. While ECT encourages unity among all
"1.7 billion Christians," it specifically applies to Catholics and
evangelicals, whom it confidently calls "brothers and sisters in
Christ." However, it never establishes how one becomes a brother or sister
in Christ, or for that matter, one of the 1.7 billion "Christians."
The goal for both communities is
"working and witnessing together in order to advance the one mission of
Christ." How do two entities with contrary gospels witness together
"to advance the one mission of Christ"? That's never brought to
light. In fact, it's buried beneath the propaganda of ecumenical enthusiasm and
feigned fidelity: "We reject any appearance of harmony that is purchased
at the price of truth. Our common resolve is made imperative by obedience to
the truth of God revealed in the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, and by trust
in the promise of the Holy Spirit's guidance...." This is self-delusion or
worse. Although the first ECT document
was clearly a sham, offering what it didn't (and couldn't) deliver,
nevertheless it was terribly successful. It spawned a perception of new
"Christian unity" which both church and world embraced with delight.
And why not in this day when image is everything, and substance
is for a few experts to decipher?
Our impressionable next evangelical
generation was in middle school when Chuck Colson and Richard John Neuhaus
first presented ECT. That was followed by ECT II, "The Gift of
Salvation," which furthered the image of "Evangelicals and Catholics
Together.” The third phase of ECT will reportedly examine the authority of
Scripture alone in light of Christian tradition. Thus the ecumenical line of
the "emperor's new clothes" is being firmly established in the eyes
of evangelicals. Although ECT is biblically "naked," few will be able
to resist its having been paraded down the fashion runway of the Cliff Barrows
Auditorium in the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton. The price, however, is the
forsaking of a billion Roman Catholic souls and revising the gospel of Christ.
Next month we will cover details and
implications of the "Catholics and Evangelicals in Conversation"
conference.
PART
TWO [July 2002]
The Bible tells us clearly that the
last days before the return of Christ will be marked by apostasy and the rise
of the world religion of Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4; Revelation 13,14).
Yet for multitudes of Christians, including many who believe in the inerrancy
of Scripture, the actual fulfilment of that prophecy seems hardly likely. A
number of things today seem to run counter to such an anti-Christian end times
scenario.
Lately, ‘evangelical’ Christianity is
experiencing a rise in acceptance. Less than a decade ago evangelicals were
near the top of the those-you-would-least-want-to-live-next-to list. Certainly
President George W. Bush’s brand of Christianity, along with his ecumenical
overtures and "faith-based" initiative, has helped to alter the
perception of ‘evangelicals’ as being "narrow-minded and intolerant."
Increasing numbers of evangelical churches are reaching mega-proportions, with
more than a few the sizes of (and favourably likened to) shopping malls.
Contemporary Christian music has become the rising star in the music industry.
Nearly all the large evangelical Christian publishing companies are now
profitable subsidiaries of massive secular corporations. For example, media
mogul Rupert Murdoch (HarperCollins Publishers, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Fox TV, etc.) would hardly have acquired Zondervan if Christian
books were not money-makers. More than all of this, however, is the public’s
awareness and approval of the supposed settling of historic differences between
Protestants and Roman Catholics. So wouldn’t all this growing interest and
appreciation for things Christian be counterproductive to an antichrist
religion?
It might seem so—if the Antichrist and
his religion were only a frontal attack against anything that smacks of
Christianity. However, as Dave Hunt pointed out in his 1990 book, Global
Peace and the Rise of Antichrist,
While the Greek prefix "anti"
generally means "against" or "opposed to," it can also mean
"in the place of" or "a substitute for." The Antichrist
will embody both meanings.... He will cunningly misrepresent Christ while
pretending to be Christ. And by that deceit he will undermine and
pervert all that Christ truly is.
His "Christianity" then will
be a counterfeit, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof" (2 Timothy 3:5). Furthermore, the Antichrist’s religion won’t
just pop onto the scene the day he does. Rather, he will fit into it, just as
one slips into a tailor-made suit. This theology was first presented in the
Garden of Eden as a perversion of God’s Word and has spread like a virus ever
since.
In fact, it began as a dialogue.
Satan started the process of
conditioning humanity when he entered into conversation with Eve, persuading
her to turn from God’s truth to her own subjective evaluation of what she felt
He had said. But God’s command had been explicit and simple. Adam and Eve were
not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; to do so would bring certain
death (Genesis 2:16,17). Notice the absoluteness of God’s statement and its
consequence; yet notice Eve’s addition and rationalizations (Genesis 3:3,6).
The serpent’s cunning questioning of her understanding ("Yea, hath God
said...?") induced her to reconsider what God meant. After all,
"the tree was good for food... pleasant to the eyes, a tree to be desired
to make one wise." Surely God wouldn’t want to withhold such
"benefits" from His creatures.
Satan’s modus operandi has never
changed: to get humans to deny the absolute truth of what God says and to look
to their own (read relative, subjective, experiential, self-serving,
sinful) understanding.
No doubt because it is crucial to our
walk of faith, twice in Proverbs we find these words: "There is a way
which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of
death" (14:12, 16:25). The solemn meaning is clear: When man interprets
God’s Word to suit himself, its life-giving truth is blatantly rejected (2
Corinthians 3:6). Consequently, destruction and death (separation from Him)
follow. This is a pitfall inherent in ecumenical dialogues which have as their
goal the unification of professing Christian groups, and which extend in some
cases even to non-Christian religions.
What then of "Catholics and
Evangelicals in Conversation," a conference recently presented at Wheaton
College and sponsored by its Department of Bible and Theology and InterVarsity
Press? (See last month’s issue for some background information.) It was a
further development, and the first public endeavour, of "Evangelicals and
Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" (ECT),
which Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship and Catholic priest Richard John
Neuhaus organized in 1994. Highly influential Catholic clergy and evangelical
leaders had participated in ECT in the hope of developing closer ties and
greater collaboration in activities of common interest to both traditions,
especially working together for the moral good of society and winning souls to
Christ. Neuhaus reminded the Wheaton conference attendees that the most
significant declaration in the original ECT document had been "the simple
statement that we [Catholics and evangelicals] recognize one another as
brothers and sisters in Christ."
Indeed, so convinced were all of the
conference speakers regarding one another’s membership in the Body of Christ
that this supposed faith was treated as a foregone conclusion rather than a
question for discussion! According to Richard Neuhaus, our being "brothers
and sisters in Christ" is the foundational premise "which drives the
entirety of the ECT effort."
But what of that premise? Are
all Catholics and evangelicals brothers and sisters in Christ? If that is
indeed the case, it would be important to know the basis for this relationship.
None of the ECT documents tells us explicitly. The Catholic Church teaches that
salvation is only through the Sacrament of Baptism. The Bible declares
unequivocally that it is only through faith. Some Catholics may come to biblical
faith in Christ, but that would be in spite of the soteriological
teaching of Rome—not because of it. Moreover, as the new believer recognizes
the Bible’s clear opposition to the beliefs, rituals, and practices of
Catholicism, he must reject them in order to be consistent with God’s truth.
So, if one is not born again of the Spirit by grace through faith alone as the
Word of God teaches, he or she is not a member of the family of God.
Catholic teachings on salvation cannot
be reconciled to the Bible. What we have here are two gospels: the biblical
gospel, and, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "another gospel" (Gal
1:6,7) which can save no one. Emphasizing that point, Paul twice calls
the preachers of such a gospel "accursed" (Gal 1:8,9). How then could
any true evangelical advocate the partnership in winning souls to
Christ proposed in Evangelicals and Catholics Together? He could not. But
that fact has neither deterred the participants of the ECT dialogue nor
dampened their enthusiasm.
At the Wheaton conference, J.I. Packer
shared the following: "What I dream of and long to see is evangelicals and
Roman Catholics standing together on the same platform to tell the world that
Jesus Christ is the Saviour whom everybody needs." He then amplified his
vision:
I dream of those who respond to that
good gospel word being taken through what would be a revived catechumenate [a
basic instructional program in the faith], a matter, incidentally, on which
Roman Catholics, I think, have got further in these last few years than
evangelicals have. A revived catechumenate that is a grounding for new
converts in which they are told that for the first year or two years they
should postpone the question of which church they are going to identify with,
and simply concentrate on getting the benefit of ministry of the Word and
Christian fellowship in whatever churches in their part of the world provide
these. Catholic or Protestant. And it might be either.
He left no doubt as to his commitment
to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together dialogues:
If through ECT there was for the future
less evangelical apartheid in relation to Roman Catholics than there has
been in the past, and less Roman Catholic triumphalism...and more of Roman
Catholic and evangelical together[ness] in the re-Christianising of society and
the re-evangelising and discipling of the world community which is so largely
drifting away from Christianity, then I should feel that we have not failed.
That’s what I hope for and pray for, and it’s to that effort that I for one
hope that God in this whole project will prosper what we’re doing, keep us from
folly, and enable us to be as influential in these ways as [best] we can be.
Sound doctrine is the bane of
ecumenical exchanges, and will inevitably give way to "dreams" supported
by experiences and what "seemeth right unto a man." Why? Because the
purpose of such conversations is convergence, i.e., togetherness. Biblical
doctrine (what God says) is absolute, inflexible. It doesn’t dance to the tune
of ecumenical dialogues. When concerned appeals were made to the specific
teachings of Scripture during Q & A segments of the conference, most in the
audience seemed annoyed. Speakers’ responses ranged from "Hey, come
on...cut us some slack here!" to chiding any who dared to suggest that
those representatives of various Christian traditions down through history
having an unbiblical understanding of essential doctrines were not fellow
believers. Timothy George, one of the evangelical developers of the ECT
documents, as well as a Wheaton Trustee, committee member on the World Council
of Churches, and (along with J.I. Packer) an executive editor of Christianity
Today, was quoted as follows:
To think that [early formulators of
Roman Catholic dogma] Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas...are all
consigned to perdition because they do not properly define justification in
precisely Reformation terminology—is that not to deny the grace of God and
God’s sovereignty? It is, in short, to turn justification by faith alone to
justification by doctrinal erudition alone, which is another form of
justification by works.
No. We’re not to judge anyone’s heart,
nor use the Reformation as our standard—simply the Scriptures (Is 8:20).
In his talk, Neuhaus presented another
criteria:
In the pro-life movement and in the
Charismatic Renewal, in all these ways evangelical Protestants and Roman
Catholics were in fact encountering one another in a way that they could not,
without sinning against the Holy Spirit, [refrain from] acknowledging what was
an encounter with brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s the reality. Then it’s
just up to the theologians and the church bureaucrats and so forth to get
accustomed to that reality and try to understand it.
Following Neuhaus’s address, in which
he presented his own dream of "full communion" of all Christian
denominations with Rome, I asked him who would be in charge when this
full communion took place. He replied that it was not plausible for everyone to
"pack up and return to the [Roman] Catholic Church." He felt such a
thing would do "great injustice" to the gifts and works of the Holy
Spirit, which have manifestly flourished over the last 500 years "outside
the boundaries of the Catholic Church." He sees "full communion"
as a "new thing" which acknowledges "the Apostolic
Deposit," the "Petrine Ministry... Peter among us [i.e., a Vicar of
Christ] to keep everybody in communion." He then candidly added,
But what would it look like and who
would call the plays? Please God, it would not look like the bureaucracies of
Protestant denominationalism. Please God, it would not look like the wrangling,
debased forms of democratic governments and argumentative church assemblies
where faith and morals are thrown open to vote. Please God, it would not mean
domination by a conclave of elderly Italian prelates, as too often has been the
case in the Catholic Church.... There wouldn’t even be something we would call
the Catholic Church, that is, certainly not the Roman Catholic Church. There
would simply be the Church of Jesus Christ—East and West.
This is what ECT and other ecumenical
dialogues are all about. While I grant the sincerity of many who participate in
such conversations, I’m astonished that they don’t see the glaring
eschatological implications.
Although repeatedly professing
their desire for unity based only upon the truth found in Jesus Christ, ECT’s goal of "togetherness" has
blinded them to what the Bible clearly says about religious unity in the last
days. Where is organizational "full communion" found except in the
one-world religion of Antichrist?
Biblical unity in Christ, the true
fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ, can only come about by grace
through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Anything added, Paul tells us, is a rejection of
the gospel. Jesus will deny ever knowing those who have come to Him on any
other terms but His own, even though they sincerely cry, "Lord,
Lord..." (Matthew 7:22,23).
Having been a Roman Catholic for 32
years, an evangelical for 25, and one of the founders of Reaching Catholics For
Christ (RCFC), I was inclined during the panel discussion to reprove the
evangelical speakers for their participation in ECT. Instead, however, I simply
identified myself and my association with RCFC * (which was met with indignant
groans) and directed my question to the evangelicals (only Timothy George was
absent) as follows:
The Philippian jailor of Acts 16 cried
out to Paul, ‘...what must I do to be saved?’ The response was both simple and
explicit: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
What else is necessary?
Only two panel members responded. Both
dodged the biblical imperative. Why would these evangelicals, including
J.I. Packer, not instantly respond, "Nothing!"? Because if that were
taken seriously, it would quickly end the dialogue unto death with Rome—a false
church which has continued to add to the gospel for more than 1,500 years.
Let your loving conversations with
Roman Catholics be to this end: to help them understand and receive the
biblical gospel of salvation. TBC
All quotes are taken from the audiotape
series "Catholics and Evangelicals in Conversation," available from
Wheaton College.
* T.A.McMahon’s identification of
himself and RCFC, as well as his question to the evangelical panel members and
their responses, was not included on the panel discussion tape, because (he was
told) of a failure to record the first 11 minutes of the session.