Category Archives: Ecclesial

On the Novices Mixed Up With Digital Theology

Posted on by
1

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to theĀ office ofĀ overseer, it is a fine work he desiresĀ to do.Ā 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach,Ā the husband of one wife,Ā temperate, prudent, respectable,Ā hospitable,Ā able to teach,Ā 3Ā not addicted to wineĀ or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable,Ā free from the love of money.Ā 4Ā He must beĀ one whoĀ manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignityĀ 5Ā (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care ofĀ the church of God?),Ā 6Ā andĀ not a new convert, so that he will not becomeĀ conceited and fall into theĀ condemnationĀ incurred by the devil.Ā 7Ā And he mustĀ have a good reputation withĀ those outsideĀ the church, so that he will not fall into reproach andĀ the snare of the devil. I Timothy 3:1ā€“7

ā€˜. . . and not a new convert. . ..ā€™ This reference has nothing to do with biological age, but spiritual age. Young Timothy was biologically young, but spiritually mature nonetheless. Even so, Timothy is something of a spiritual prodigy in certain ways, and wouldnā€™t necessarily constitute the rule, but more of an exception. To be spiritually mature typically requires time. The Apostle Paul himself spent years of time growing and spiritually maturing before he presented himself before the Apostles in Jerusalem. As such, as a general rule, I think it is safe to note that getting beyond the ā€˜noviceā€™ label, the baby Christian stage and into adulthood from there, is a condition for being an elder and/or more generally a teacher in the church of Jesus Christ.

Even so, the learning curve is different for everyone; and only the Lord can ultimately confirm or deny those He would place in the role of an elder or even teacher in His church. The church itself is left with the task of discernment; and this itself is not an abstract action, but one in full dependence on the same Holy Spirit who raises up and puts down the would-be leaders in the church. Clearly, the ā€˜Pastoral epistlesā€™ go on and give lists of attributes that ought to be present in those men who are recognized as elders in and for the church; and these attributes can generally be extrapolated out to any teachers in the church (men or women).

Yet, enter the digital online ā€˜Christianā€™ world. There are novices galore. They have no recognized training, and even if they do, they have anonymity to do as they will (even when using their real names). These novices are easy to spot; they foment division among the brethren and sistren; they engage in sectarian ways that elevate adiaphora to levels of essential and thus required doctrines in order for there to be unity among the churches in the Church. And in this elevation, they spread the yeast of disunity among the saints. A chaotic mood that comes from a sense of vaingloriousness that the would-be teacher (who in fact turns out to be a novice) moves and breathes in and from in all of his/her activities as ā€œtheological educators.ā€ In the end, such novices donā€™t foster the unity already referred to, but an us versus them attitude that punctures the unifying ground that all Christians share in the singular person of Jesus Christ; the Churchā€™s concrete esse (being) and res (reality).

Conversely, the aforementioned ought to evoke a sense of sobriety and seriousness as any of us attempt to ā€œteachā€ others the Word of God; particularly as that is undertaken online. Whether that be through written or audible media. There ought to be the realization that when we portend to bear witness to Christ in ā€˜authoritativeā€™ ways, when we set ourselves up as teachers, that we will entail a ā€˜stricter judgmentā€™ in the End. And to me, what this means is that what the would-be theologians and Bible teachers ought to strive for is to ā€˜rightly divide the Word of God, which is truth.ā€™ Further, what this ought to entail is that the teacher does their due diligence in constantly learning; learning from the teachers and doctors and evangelists that Christ has provided His Church with; for purposes of her edification. This requires that the theologian, the Christian in general, operates from a humble, teachable spirit. Clearly, given the eschatological nature of theology and theological knowledge, in regard to theologia nostra (ā€˜our theologyā€™), none of us will ever ā€œarriveā€ this side of the Eschaton. We all, inclusive of the teachers, elders, evangelists et al. see the reality as if looking at a puzzle; with greater vantages of clarity or lesser, as the case may be. If internalized in an unhealthy way, this might cause a paralysis; it might cause the teacher to wonder how they can speak God at all. And so, we walk humbly before our God in Christ.

Doing ministry, especially teaching ministry, ought to be a sobering thing. But when we enter places like Twitter, and other like online forums where professing Christians congregate, the exact opposite of sobriety is on display. What dominates such spaces is the novice way. And thus, as the Apostle Paul warned Timothy, there are many operating in the ensnarement of the devil himself. This ensnarement cultivates an atmosphere deoxygenated by the spirit of antiChrist. A wisdom from below rather than above, and as such, all that is demoniac and topsy-turvy becomes the prevailing marker of the ostensible discourse. In fact, it isnā€™t a coherent discourse that obtains under such pressures, but a baby-like gibberish and drooling, that ultimately calls for a naptime; and beyond, some requisite discipline that disallows or discounts what is being gibbered until some level of coherent and sober speech that actually bears witness to the risen Christ and triune God can be produced.

Kyrie eleison

The Privacy of the Christian Religion

Posted on by

Photo credit: The Atlantic

The privacy of the Christian religion, particularly as that obtains within the so-calledĀ evangelicalĀ churches of North America, might be one of the most deleterious things to have ever pierced its fabric. The individualism of a post-Enlightened secular world has penetrated the walls of evangelicalism in force. Evangelicals hold onto “me and my Jesus,” “me and my Bible,” and only when that serves their personal interests and feelings. This has been a century’s long problem, longer in fact, and it has destroyed the spirituality, or even the potential for a genuine Christian spirituality, en masse.

When a turn-to-the-subject posture gets applied to the Christian life what gets produced is North American evangelicalism, simpliciter. In my view, at least institutionally and collectivistically, the experiment of an evangelicalism ought to be abandoned (because it has already abandoned itself); and this, posthaste. Originally, in the early Protestant world, to be an evangelicalĀ meant to be a full blooded proponent of what came to be known as aĀ sola ScripturaĀ Christianity. To be an evangelical under this rubric was to literally put your life on the line. To be aĀ sola fideĀ Gospel proponent was to deny the authority of the known church (in the West), at the time. Now to be an evangelical means to be aĀ moralistic therapeutic deist; to be a participant in a folk religion founded upon the ‘feels’ of the pastors and the laity, respectively.

I have been triggered, and this post is the result of that. There is a lot behind this trigger which will remain unstated. It should be said though: good intentions are no longer good enough (and never were). An empty piety, and its spirituality, does not reflect a genuinely Gospel formed Christianity. When churches are funded by said piety, all that we are left with, again, is a folk religion; not worth the time and energy of any committed Christian. Elks Lodge Christianity, country club Christianity, narthex Christianity, me and my Jesus Christianity have failed the people. There is no power there because the Holy Spirit is not there. There is no growth there because everything has been dumbed down to the feels of the people; indeed, this shaped by the secular culture that has penetrated the evangelical church to its core. But the pietism keeps the blinders on the peoples’ eyes all around. What an atrocious pitiful thing.

#rantover

On Being a Theologian In and For the Church

Posted on by

There is no necessary disjunction between being a so-called academic theologian and a pastor (evangelist, whatever). In fact, for me I donā€™t really recognize the academic casting. Surely, there are academic theologians (for whom the doing of theology can be purely reduced down to an intellectualist ejaculation). But that makes no sense to me, categorically. I have ā€œbecome a theologianā€ not for intellectual reasons, per se, but doxological ones. Being a worshipper of the triune God entails the whole life, the whole being of a person. As such, at least in my disposition, ā€œbeing academicā€ can never eclipse being a worshipper (and witnesser) of the triune God in Christ. It is an organic unfolding, at least for me, of how best worshipping God gets expressed; through inhabiting Scripture, and all of its entailments. And this includes, right at the center, being studiosis. Muslims refer to Christians as people of the Book, and this for a reason.

The Church as Prolongation of the Incarnation or as Witnesser: The Catholics and Protestants

Posted on by

Ecclesiology for people in the churches is an underdeveloped, and even undeveloped teaching for most. Unless a Christian person is self-motivated to pursue study of this important doctrine they will most likely live their Christian existence within the darkness of absence (of teaching). I think this, in fact, has a lot to do with many so-called Protestant Christians swimming the shallow end of the Tiber River; i.e., to become members of the Roman Catholic church. In nuce, Roman Catholic ecclesiology entails the notion that the Roman church itself prolongates the incarnation of Jesus Christ. That is to say, that the Roman ecclesia, for proponents of Roman Catholic theology, believe that its church is the visible embodiment of Jesus Christ Himself; thus, their reference to the mystici corporis Christi (ā€˜mystical body of Christā€™). Here is a snippet of a longer encyclical that Pope Pius XII wrote for the Catholic church with reference to understanding just what the Roman Catholic understanding of the Church is:

But if our Savior, by His death, became, in the full and complete sense of the word, the Head of the Church, it was likewise through His blood that the Church was enriched with the fullest communication of the Holy Spirit, through which, from the time when the Son of Man was lifted up and glorified on the Cross by His sufferings, she is divinely illumined. For then, as Augustine notes, [39] with the rending of the veil of the temple it happened that the dew of the Paraclete’s gifts, which heretofore had descended only on the fleece, that is on the people of Israel, fell copiously and abundantly (while the fleece remained dry and deserted) on the whole earth, that is on the Catholic Church, which is confined by no boundaries of race or territory. Just as at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him, that it might be a fitting instrument of the Divinity in the sanguinary work of the Redemption, so at the hour of His precious death He willed that His Church should be enriched with the abundant gifts of the Paraclete in order that in dispensing the divine fruits of the Redemption she might be, for the Incarnate Word, a powerful instrument that would never fail. For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force for the building up of the Body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces.[1]

The Roman Catholic church maintains, as indicated by Pope Pius XII, that the Holy Spirit, as the enlivener and Creator of the Church has so mystically tied Himself into the visible manifestation of the Roman See, along with all of her sacraments, hierarchy of pastors, so on and so forth, that the only ā€˜placeā€™ union with God in Christ can obtain is if someone is brought into union with the mystical body of Jesus Christ; or, in the Roman view, with the Roman Catholic church herself. This union is supervened by the bishops and priests of the Catholic church, not least of which, is the Pope himself. Once inducted and confirmed into the Catholic church, through baptism and partaking in the Mass of the sacraments, it is at this time that the Catholic convert becomes a ā€˜feederā€™ on and mystical participant within the visible body of Christ on earth; or the Roman Catholic church. In this sense, and per Pius XIIā€™s aforementioned words, there is a real sense wherein the Roman ecclesiology, with its insistent assertion on their status as the visible body of Christ on earth, that the Church itself becomes a prolongation of the incarnation. That is, for the Roman, the Church has become and is so entwined with the notion that Roma is now the apple of Godā€™s eye, that she alone is Godā€™s visible body on earth; that in order for communion with God to obtain for humanity, would-be Christians must come into, again, union with the mystical body of Christ; which is none other, according to Roman doctrine, but the Latin Catholic church.

Protestants, on the other hand, rooted in a radical theology of the Word of God, maintain that the body of Christ is fully present within the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ; indeed, even as Christ has resurrected with that body, ascended with that body, intercedes in priestly session at the right hand of the Father with that body, and will come again with that body; His glorified body. For the Protestant, thusly, there is no prolongation of the incarnation of Christ as a mystical body of Christ, but rather its concrete existence in the flesh and blood of Imannuelā€™s veins as He has freely elected to be for us, with us, and not God without us in Jesus Christ.

Hence, Protestants are not burdened with the notion that we must present some type of mystical body of Christ to each other and the world writ large, as if that body is constituted by a physical address in Vatican City, Italy. On the contrary, Protestants understand that the esse of the Church is constituted by the literal body of Christ Himself for us. Resultantly, the Protestant doesnā€™t seek to point a would-be or already Christians to a particular iteration or expression of the Church in the world as the Roman does. The Protestant understands that their respective Christian existence is constituted, indeed by the Holy Spirit, by way of union with Christ immediately, directly. The Protestant bears witness to the finished work of God in Christ as the reality (res) of the Church in the triune God. Karl Barth writes on this status of the Protestant Christian similarly,

. . . Their existence in the world depends upon the fact that this alone is their particular gift and task. They have not to assist or add to the being and work of their living Saviour who is the Lord of the world, let alone to replace it by their own work. The community is not a prolongation of His incarnation, His death, and resurrection, the acts of God and their revelation. It has not to do these things. It has to witness to them. It is its consolation that it can do this. Its marching-orders are to do it.[2]

Barth rightly notes that the work of the Church is absolutely finished in the work of Jesus Christ. It is His work of salvation, of building His Church, that He has already accomplished; the Churchā€™s task, by the Spirit, is to bear witness to this, her reality, in her Head and reality, Jesus Christ. The Roman church, alternatively, believes that it constitutes itself by re-presenting the Mass, the death of Jesus Christ, through the primary sacraments of baptism and the eucharist. There remains an unfinished work within the Catholic ecclesiology which makes the prolongation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ the most organic outcome. That is, because their remains a proving ground, so to speak, of the Christianā€™s worth to inherit eternal life through the treasuries of Christā€™s merits, over and beyond the work of Christā€™s atonement. And so, for the Catholic Christian, the Mass and its sacraments remain the portal whereby salvation might be constantly offered, affirmed, reaffirmed, over and again, as the Christian seeks to establish a level of sanctification whereby they are found worthy enough to in fact become real and ultimate participants within the mystical body of Christ. If the Church, as it is for the Roman, is a prolongation of the incarnation, then the incarnation, logically, requires further re-establishment and curation by the faithful; if in fact, the body of Christ can be shown to be the true body of Christ in the world today.

This requires further fleshing out. But hopefully there has been enough provided for the reader to start to digest.

[1] Pope Pius XII, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI: ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON THE MISTICAL BODY OF CHRIST TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, published by, The Holy See, accessed 05-05-2026.

[2] Karl Barth,Ā Church Dogmatics IV/1 Ā§59 [318] The Doctrine of Reconciliation:Ā Study Edition (London:T&T Clark, 2010), 312.

On Being Churchless in the 21st Century: A Personal Tale

Posted on by

It is not easy to find a sound, healthy Bible teaching evangelical church in the 21st century. For example, we (my wife and I) have been without a stable church for quite some time. We have ā€œchurch-shopped,ā€ and that gets almost defeatist after a while. It isnā€™t that weā€™re looking for the ā€œperfect church,ā€ not at all. We are simply looking for a church where the Word of God is opened and exposited in a way where Christ is central; where the Gospel is central; where genuine Christian proclamation is taking place. Unfortunately, the MANY churches we have visited over these last many years are still more concerned with being ā€œrelevant,ā€ and user-friendly than they are with being biblically faithful. But then youā€™ll visit a church that is ostensibly biblically and doctrinally focused, and all your generally left with are John MacArthur-like churches. Or youā€™ll visit a church that is either, in fact, a mega church, or aspires to be one. Or maybe, youā€™ll visit a church that has a bunch of satellite campuses, with one mothership campus that keeps the franchise steady. But in the main, most so-called evangelical churches out there in the 21st century, are indeed peddling what has been called a moralistic therapeutic deism; so not really even the Christian religion, but a folk religion. They literally have a Ted Talk for the sermon and a tryout for American Idol as ā€œworship.ā€ And this is pervasive.

On top of all of that, and at a personal level, my job doesnā€™t make things very easy either. I work on-call which in and of itself makes it prohibitive towards looking for a solid church. And then when it works out to try and do that, we end up wasting our time at the types of churches described previously. So, we are in a hard spot; and I donā€™t think we are alone. What we have been doing in lieu of being able to find a worthwhile church is live viewing a church online that used to be my parents church, and that we attended back in the day in Lakewood (Bellflower), CA. I am friends with the senior pastor, and they have something very unique going as far as churches go in the 21st century. But ultimately, while it is good to still get the Word taught, doing online church isnā€™t sustainable; as far as meeting bodily needs, such as fellowship, friendship, and an immediacy to one-another that Christians ideally ought to have; indeed, as the body of Christ meeting physically around the Word taught, and the Bread and Welchā€™s Grape Juice consumed (i.e., communion, ā€œLordā€™s supperā€ etc.)

So, as you think about it, please pray that we will finally be able to find a healthy sound Bible teaching church that we can settle into. Thank you.

Matthew Henry’s Perspective on Thirdwayism: Contra Secularism’s In-Breaking into the Churches

Posted on by

The evangelical churches in North America, in particular, and in the West, in general, have largely been secularized. To say something has been secularized has broad affect. But primarily, I am wanting to emphasize how pagan Enlightenment categories have been uncritically swallowed by the churches. Whether that be to affirm climate change (as ā€œcreation careā€ or ecotheology), softness on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-Intersex (i.e., ā€œgay Christians”) issues, critical theory and critical race theory, Liberation theology, and a whole host of other antisupranaturalistic Enlightenment categories and ideologies, the evangelical churches, by and large, have allowed themselves to be defined by. And if the culture, as the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit identify for us, is in fact an ā€˜evil age,ā€™ then what in Godā€™s Holy Name hath this darkness to do with the Light? As Christians, as ambassadors, as emissaries of Jesus Christ we have been called to bear witness to Jesus Christ, and by this witness, by His reality, His resurrection power indwelling us, indeed as we participate in His life by the Spirit, by His Light we are to expose the darkness; which would entail, that we, on the other hand, repudiate the secularism, the paganism, the Enlightenmentism that so many of the evangelical churches are in fact imbibing (even in the name of Jesus Christ as ā€œbridge-buildingā€ aka thirdwayism).

Conversely, the aforementioned has a history. The formative parts of that history are present within the 17th and 18th centuries (so, the Enlightenment). This was a time when the empiricism and rationalism of someone like John Locke, the rationalistic dualism of Immanuel Kant, the Deism of the like et al. was in full blossom. The Deists, of course, simply believed that there was a transcendent god, up there yonder, who got everything started, who created the heavens and earth, gave it a good spin, and has since left it to itself; and to us. Embedded in Deism was a charred rationalism, that when applied to the confessional Dogmas of the historic church, with particular focus on the doctrine of the triune God, left God almost dead in the gutter; left a God, as noted, who was most assuredly not three-in-one / one-in-three. As such, being a confessional Christianā€”someone who affirmed the orthodox ecumenical church creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, with reference to the triunity of God and the deity of Christā€”had come to wane. In the face of the intelligentsia of that day and hour, to be a confessional Christian was looked at like being the village idiot or something. Even so, and by the mercy of God, such persons persisted.

In the midst of this, those ā€œpersistents,ā€ the people who withstood succumbing to the Deists and rationalists among them, within the ā€œchurches,ā€ remained faithful to the reality of the triune God. Indeed, here is how contemporary church historian, Nick Needham, writes about one of these ā€˜faithful,ā€™ with direct reference to Matthew Henry himself:

For the Dissenters, Presbyterian Matthew Henry (1662ā€“1714, author of the famous Bible commentary, spoke in a similar vein as the 18th Century began:

The low condition of the church of God ought to be greatly lamented; the Protestant interest small, very small; a decay of piety; attempts for reformation ineffectual. Help, Lord! There are but few who are truly religious; who believe the report of the Gospel, and who are willing to take the pains, and run the hazards of religion. Many make a fair show in the flesh, but few only walk closely with God. Where is he that engageth his heart, or that stirs up himself to take hold of his Maker?[1]

The way Henry was referring to his time and day in the churches sounds eerily similar to our day and time. More than ever, so-called evangelical Christians, particularly ā€œthe leaders,ā€ have allowed the erosive powers of the current world culture[s] to seep into the churches; and they have done this all in the name of Jesus Christ. There are many who use the name of Jesus Christ, refer to the Bible, use all the right Christianese, and yet they have in point of fact denied the power of God, the Gospel, in favor of cloistering with the various secular ideologies run amok among us in this world system. These ā€˜forces,ā€™ within the churches, particularly as we see that given expression in a magazine like Christianity Today, or in the writings and activities of the late, Tim Kellerā€™s thirdwayism (acquiescing to the progressive ideologies of the 21st century), in the name of bridge-building, or in the ā€œwinsomenessā€ of someone like Russell Moore or J. D. Greear, have taken the many peoples of the churches into the slough of despondency, right along with them. This shanā€™t remain the case!

Like in Henryā€™s day, it is easy, and at a point, even appropriate to bewail the current church situation. But we cannot stay in that status. The ā€˜faithfulā€™ must recognize our current moment, as that has been foisted upon us, even by us, and first and foremost repent. Once this step has been taken it is incumbent on each and everyone of us, indeed as individual members of the church, to keep in step with the Holy Spirit, take up our crosses daily, and follow Jesus Christ. As we live out our unique callings by our Master, as we shine brightly with the Brightness of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, as we expose the darkness with the Light of Christ, we might be able, yet, to inject the churches, the church, with the vitality of our risen and ascended Lord. That can only come as we participate in the life of Christ, in union with Him, and by His resurrection and ascension energy, in shared koinonia (fellowship), one with the other, by which the power of God, the Gospel, can come to have full effect on the liveliness of the churches, and as the light to the world that Jesus is Savior and Lord.

[1] Nick Needham, 2000 Years of Christā€™s Power: Volume 5: The Age of Enlightenment and Awakening (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2023), 99.

A Catholic Ripping of the Protestant church / A Protestant Riposting to the Catholic churched

Posted on by

The following is from an X/Twitter account that identifies herself as THE Based Trinityā„¢. She is clearly a Roman Catholic, of the Latin Mass proclivity. And she was recently, or at some point, invited to a Protestant church service. Below I will provide her response to that experience, and then below that I will respectively present my response to her as I offered that on X.

I got invited to a Protestant ā€œservice.ā€ Hereā€™s how it all went down. The intro alone was 40 minutes of the ā€œworshipā€ band finding the resonant frequency of all my internal organs, making me queasy, with the zombies around me waving their hands in the air like they didnā€™t care (about actual scripture). This was followed by guilt tripping tithes and forced socialization, boomer women screaming commands at God to HEEEAAAHHHL IN JESUS NAME some specific congregants, a hot mess of a sermon with the theme of ā€œdonā€™t complainā€, usurping parts of St. Paulā€™s epistles before boldly declaring ā€œif youā€™re born again, ALL YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN!ā€, heaps of vain repetition (pastor making the congregation repeat every 6th or so line he calls out), and the good ole ā€œaltar callā€ where people go kneel before the worship band (prots like to call that idol worship when we do it). Not to mention the fact that I was repeatedly ambushed by everyone forcefully introducing theirselves – even when I was very obviously trying to maintain my sanity by quietly reading my Catholic Press prayer book. One lady tried shoving a visitor contact card in my face while I was doing so, and gave me this appalled dirty look when I politely declined. Iā€™d gone to the 8am Mass beforehand, prayed my usual pre-Mass rosary, then prayed an extra rosary afterward.. but when I came out of that dentistā€™s office ā€œchurchā€ I was ready to go to the noon Mass. I felt dirty and hollow and it broke my brain and my heart that while I was in there, everyone was lapping up the emotionally charged nonsense and waving their hands and muttering those ā€œyes Jesus thank you Jesus Aaaaaymenā€ vain Protestant repetitions. Nothing has ever made me want to run back to my car and gun it to a TLM more than what I endured today. Of course, there was plenty of irony woven into the sermon. It pains me to see so many well meaning people who are so dangerously misled. Pray for them. We have to.

And my response:

As an evangelical Iā€™d say this is an apt description of many evangelical church services in North America (although, ā€œaltar call?ā€ if only most churches still did those). But yes, in my view, the evangelical churches have almost totally gone to seed; quite badly in fact. Even so, this does not necessarily entail that the Roman Catholics are the only or recommended alternative. It has its own problemsā€”many in fact. What this does mean though, I think, is that evangelicalism shouldnā€™t be left on life support any longer by those of us who can feel this galā€™s angst and emptiness, just the same. I donā€™t know what the way forward is for the evangelical churches (in name only). A return to simplicity and a Word focusedness is the only way I can really imagine. The Word for the Protestant, and the American evangelical as an ostensible subset, must shape the Protestant worship service; it must shape the body life of the church; it must be disentangled from this or that period of theological development and allow to stand on its own, within the history of its interpretation. Protestants, de jure, have a much surer way to offer than do the accretions found in Romanism. There is hope for the Protestant, a balm of Gilead available; and it must resound and find its ground in a theology of the Word of God alone as the esse of all that is real, and breathing and life giving. But I can resonate with this Catholic galā€™s conclusion, in regard to the vanity of the evangelical churches. Itā€™s just her antidote that is aloof.

Problematizing a Development of Sacra Doctrina within the Church: With Reference to Peter of John Olivi

Posted on by

Bernard McGinn writes the following with reference to the apocalyptic-theology-of-history present in the mediaeval theologian, Peter of John Oliviā€™s (c. 1248ā€”1298) thought:

The invective Olivi directs against the evidences of the carnal Church is concerned not only with the ecclesiastical abuses of the day, especially with avarice and simony, but also, like Bonaventure before him, with the use of Aristotle in theology. The ProvenƧal Franciscan also expressed belief in a double Antichristā€”the Mystical Antichrist, a coming false pope who would attack the Franciscan Rule, and the Great, or Open Antichrist, whose defeat would usher in the final period of history. Characteristic of Franciscan apocalyptic is his emphasis on the role of Francis as the initiator of the period of renewal and his hope for the conversion of all peoples in the course of the final events.[1]

Olivi was a student of the infamous mediaeval theologian, Bonaventure. But I thought this treatment by McGinn on Olivi was telling. Telling in regard to the patterns and thematics of theological development. Telling, in regard to how theologies and emphases often repeat themselves in various and all periods of theological development throughout history. As McGinn highlights, Olivi was concerned with a ā€œcarnal Churchā€; he was concerned with the imposition of Aristotleā€™s categories upon Christian theology (which of course Thomas Aquians was famous for doing). We also observe, that for Olivi, according to McGinn, he saw that the Catholic church itself had corruption riddling it throughout; he saw the Antichrist coming from within the Church, not without. This latter development is interesting to me because it reminds me of Martin Lutherā€™s view that the office of the Pope would finally produce the Antichrist (the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod still holds to this position in their confession). And then, we see in Olivi, a belief in something like a postmillennial understanding of the very end of history. He believes, according to McGinn, that the whole world will be Christianized prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Many things stood out to me in this one paragraph on Oliviā€™s theology. The primary hook for me, and this wonā€™t be surprising to my readers, is that Olivi was critical of Aristotleā€™s presence in the development of the sacra doctrina within the Church. Olivi, like his teacher, Bonaventure, believed that Aristotle could only serve as an artificial grammar for articulating Christian doctrine. Such sucralose, in the minds of Bonaventure and Olivi, respectively, had no place in affecting a theology for the Church, insofar that Aristotle himself thought a construct of God as a pagan.

It is important for Christian folks in the 21st century to get beyond theology purely sourced from Twitter/X and other social media platforms. What the genuine student finds, if they study the books, is that things are much more complex and less concretized than they might want to think. There have been various strands of development, various traditions cultivated in the Churchā€™s history that transcend the parochial and sectarian and absolutized divides we see today on the interwebs. I think this one paragraph alone on Olivi helps to illustrate that point.

Within evangelical/reformed theology today there is a movement towards retrieval. And yet what this has come to mean, especially through the work of someone like Matthew Barrett and Craig Carter, is that what is really being retrieved is one strand of development that is Aristotelian/Thomist heavy; as if ā€˜Christian Aristotelianismā€™ was the only development present within the mediaeval and early and post Reformed churches. This simply is not the case; again, as our passage illustrates.

Conversely, I am anti-Aristotelian myself (no shocker there!) Some might think that this is because of my appreciation for the theologies of Barth and TF Torrance alone. Again, this is not the case. I was anti-Aristotelian way before I ever read Barth and TFT. I was exposed to the Bonaventure-Olivi thread of development twenty-three years ago in seminary. This thread was developed further with the sparker of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther; he looked back to such threads in the via antiqua through his direct mentor, Johann von Staupitz, and before him, Jean Gerson.

Anyway, this post is somewhat of a smorgasbord of hits on various issues; something like a Miscellanies. But I hope, at least, the reader might be able to better appreciate the ā€œproblematizedā€ nature of doctrinal development within the Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, I hope that folks might be alerted to the problem of reducing and then absolutizing oneā€™s pet positions. Surely, we ought to be convicted about the theological things we believe. But those convictions ought to first take shape (in a spiraling and continuous way) through the caldron of toiling with the sources (ad fontes) of the history of interpretation and development of the sacra doctrina.

[1] Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 205.

An Apology for Reading Deep Theology, Beyond Nerdom

Posted on by

This is no secret: I read lots of what would be considered ā€œacademic theology.ā€ The thing is, I donā€™t read it to be an academic, per se. The thought occurs to me that there are many out there who read and do theology for purely academic reasons. But you donā€™t have to. You can read academic theology simply to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ; to be active in the sanctification process, as the Holy Spirit blows and kindles the fire of Christā€™s love upon our new hearts of ā€˜flesh.ā€™ It is true, some might mistake you for being an academic, or aspiring to be an academic theologian when you read and comment on academic theologies. But in the end that might only be a superficial reading of things. Certainly, being a voracious reader of theologies, here and there, will begin to form a particular lexicon and theological imaginary for said reader. And yet, if being a reader in this way, but one who reads constrained by the love of Christ, with a flaming heart for the living and triune God, the way the academic theology gets internalized and personalized coram Deo doesnā€™t have to terminate in the guild or the academy. Indeed, I would argue if that is where such movings and breathings terminate then they are like the grass that withers up and blows away; better to spend our time and energy on something else at that point.

For me it isnā€™t enough to cloud such theological meanderings under the guise of being ā€œnerdy.ā€ What point does being nerdy accomplish for the Christian? To me this only serves to segregate the doing and reading of theology for a certain demographic in the church; i.e., those obsessed with purely intellectual pursuits. But what if you are so in love with Jesus Christ and the triune God that reading the depths has nothing to do with being nerdy? Just because the masses find such theological inkling to be too deep and unnecessary, this doesnā€™t make it so. So, if it isnā€™t nerdy and it isnā€™t too deep and unnecessary for the so-called everyday Christian, what good does such theological reading do?

I would simply suggest that it has a stretching effect, to the point that it elevates our altitudes to the heights; the heights that Christ has already forged for us in His ascension to the Right Hand of the Father. He has already performed these ā€˜good worksā€™ for us, in Himself, so that we too might participate in the deeps and wides of His Heavenly Kingdom. Deep theology isnā€™t just for so-called theological nerds (whatever that is supposed to entail); deep theology isnā€™t ā€œnotā€ for everyday people (double negative, I see it); indeed, it is for lovers of Jesus Christ all the way up and all the way down. To me reading deep theology, and even the Bible (of course!) voraciously, is really just a symptom of being in love with the unfathomable God of life; who was, and is, and is to come. Thinking deeply about God, in a saturated and correct way, can only lead to a life of living in a saturated and correct way coram Deo (before God).

So, what are you waiting for?: read deeply, even if it ends up confusing people into thinking youā€™re some type of theological academic wannabe. Just know, that when you seek God you will find Him; and this, because He first found us in Christ that we might find Him indeed.

My Exchange with an ‘Orthobro’: Addressing the spirit of Sectarianism

Posted on by

I just recently had an exchange on X with a type of guy who is often referred to as an ā€œOrthobro,ā€ short for ā€œOrthodox brother,ā€ but with a ā€œdudeā€ edge. I am not going to use his name, which to his credit he actually uses his (real name) on X. But he is a recent convert from Anglicanism (as an ordinand for the ministry) to the Eastern Orthodox church (where he will be soon, apparently, also an ordinand). As you will notice, only by inference, I would suggest that he is still in the so-called ā€œcage-stage.ā€ Often this terminology is applied to guys who become ā€œCalvinists.ā€ It is that novelty stage where everything is new; where youā€™ve finally taken the plunge into a whole new world where everything is shiny and sparkly; and you think everyone else, besides you, and your newfound faith, is wrong. I would say my interlocutor easily fits within those parameters.

So, what I am going to do is simply string all of my responses to my interlocutor together, and allow you to infer what it is that I am probably responding to; with reference to his comments to me. I will share a comment from him that will serve as a nice synopsizing frame, which in spirit, typifies the gist of most of the exchange from his end. I will also note here at the outset that what sparked the whole exchange is that I reposted his original post, made on his timeline, where he was noting his conversion to the ā€œonly true and Apostolic Church on the earth.ā€ When I reposted his post, my comment was something like: ā€œitā€™s too bad when people move say from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy (in this case) that they simply canā€™t say that thatā€™s what they did; without the further sectarian qualification that often attends it.ā€

The Orthodox interlocutor: It’s hardly surprising that as a Reformed theologian you have such a view. I pray you eventually come to see the truth and become Orthodox rather than holding to heretical Reformed doctrine that is wholly inconsistent with the Apostolic faith and the patristic consensus. . .. It’s simple, there was one undivided Church, the RCC split off at the Great Schism, then your denomination split off from them. The original Church remained unchanged and still exists today. Ask yourself which human man founded your “church”.

My responses: Jesus loves you too. Altho, I’d say I’m not quite “Reformed” in the way you are presuming. I’m Athanasian Reformed; I’m “Eastern” Reformed; it could even be said, of Thomas F. Torrance, in important ways. You presume much too much methinks. In the end, you’re a sectarian in spirit, which is not of Christ, and thus is antiChrist. . .. Sure thing. And yet the esse of the church is not possessed by a particular “body” on this earth, but grounded in the body of Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father. There is no prolongation of the incarnation in a peculiar people found in the “East” or anywhere. The church participates in the Church, so to speak, in the triune life, mediated by the Church’s reality in Jesus Christ. We thus bear witness to that reality, to the Church’s reality, through union with His life by the Spirit. . .. Yes, the Orthodox church is really Greek. There is either Greek or Latin churchiology in the history. Yes, indeed: His body, not ours. To simply assert an absolute representation of that on earth is in fact sectarian par excellence. Study of church history itself doesn’t bear out your assertions about the uniformity of things, per se. . .. Again, eh. I understand you must assert such things. It’s as if you operate with some type of physicalism in regard to the church’s lineage. The only yea or no in the church is not conciliar, but within the divine and triune life itself. Your appeals to authority aren’t convincing. . .. This will have to be my last comment. Quoting Bruce McCormack on the councils and creeds and their value. “I say all of this to indicate that even the ecumenical creeds are only provisional statements. They are only relatively binding as definitions of what constitutes ā€œorthodoxy.ā€ Ultimately, orthodox teaching is that which conformsĀ perfectlyĀ to the Word of God as attested in Holy Scripture. But given that such perfection is not attainable in this world, it is understandable that Karl Barth should have regarded ā€œDogmaā€ as an eschatological concept. The ā€œdogmasā€ (i.e., the teachings formally adopted and promulgated by individual churches) are witnesses toĀ theĀ Dogma and stand in a relation of greater or lesser approximation to it. But they do not attain to it perfectlyā€”hence, the inherent reformability of all ā€œdogmas.ā€ Orthodoxy is not therefore a static, fixed reality; it is a body of teachings which have arisen out of, and belong to, aĀ historyĀ which is as yet incomplete and constantly in need of reevaluation.” -Bruce L. McCormack,Ā Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl BarthĀ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 16. . .. Sola scriptura isnā€™t solo scriptura (most likely how youā€™re thinking of itā€”many do, even those who say they hold to sola). Anyway, Iā€™m more radical than that given my theory of revelation. We wonā€™t make headway here, that is clear. I can understand why someone would be drawn to the aesthetics of Orthodoxy, no doubt. If I were to go that way, it wouldnā€™t be Latin, but Greek for sure. Other than that, socially and politically you and I seem to be simpatico, as Iā€™ve scanned your TL a little. . .. Eh. Enjoy.

I think I might have made a few more responses to him, but the above should suffice. I let him know in one of my responses that I would look forward to hooking back up in ten years, Lord willing, and seeing how he had calmed down on the sectarianism by then; hopefully.