Category Archives: Ecclesial

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 (‘mystical body of Christ’). 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 ‘place’ 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 ‘feeder’ on and mystical participant within the visible body of Christ on earth; or the Roman Catholic church. In this sense, and per Pius XII’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 God’s eye, that she alone is God’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 Imannuel’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 doesn’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 Church’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 Christian’s worth to inherit eternal life through the treasuries of Christ’s merits, over and beyond the work of Christ’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, Church Dogmatics IV/1 §59 [318] The Doctrine of Reconciliation: 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 “church-shopped,” and that gets almost defeatist after a while. It isn’t that we’re looking for the “perfect church,” 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 “relevant,” and user-friendly than they are with being biblically faithful. But then you’ll visit a church that is ostensibly biblically and doctrinally focused, and all your generally left with are John MacArthur-like churches. Or you’ll visit a church that is either, in fact, a mega church, or aspires to be one. Or maybe, you’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 “worship.” And this is pervasive.

On top of all of that, and at a personal level, my job doesn’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 don’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 isn’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 Welch’s Grape Juice consumed (i.e., communion, “Lord’s supper” 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 “creation care” or ecotheology), softness on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-Intersex (i.e., “gay 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 ‘evil age,’ then what in God’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 “bridge-building” 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 Christian—someone who affirmed the orthodox ecumenical church creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, with reference to the triunity of God and the deity of Christ—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 “persistents,” the people who withstood succumbing to the Deists and rationalists among them, within the “churches,” remained faithful to the reality of the triune God. Indeed, here is how contemporary church historian, Nick Needham, writes about one of these ‘faithful,’ with direct reference to Matthew Henry himself:

For the Dissenters, Presbyterian Matthew Henry (1662–1714, 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 “the leaders,” 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 ‘forces,’ 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 Keller’s thirdwayism (acquiescing to the progressive ideologies of the 21st century), in the name of bridge-building, or in the “winsomeness” 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 shan’t remain the case!

Like in Henry’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 ‘faithful’ 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 Christ’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 Trinity™. 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 “service.” Here’s how it all went down. The intro alone was 40 minutes of the “worship” 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 didn’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 “don’t complain”, usurping parts of St. Paul’s epistles before boldly declaring “if you’re born again, ALL YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN!”, heaps of vain repetition (pastor making the congregation repeat every 6th or so line he calls out), and the good ole “altar call” 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. I’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 dentist’s office “church” 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 “yes Jesus thank you Jesus Aaaaaymen” 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 I’d say this is an apt description of many evangelical church services in North America (although, “altar call?” 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 problems—many in fact. What this does mean though, I think, is that evangelicalism shouldn’t be left on life support any longer by those of us who can feel this gal’s angst and emptiness, just the same. I don’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 gal’s conclusion, in regard to the vanity of the evangelical churches. It’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 Olivi’s (c. 1248—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 Provençal Franciscan also expressed belief in a double Antichrist—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 “carnal Church”; he was concerned with the imposition of Aristotle’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 Luther’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 Olivi’s theology. The primary hook for me, and this won’t be surprising to my readers, is that Olivi was critical of Aristotle’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 Church’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 ‘Christian Aristotelianism’ 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 “problematized” 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 one’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 “academic theology.” The thing is, I don’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 don’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 Christ’s love upon our new hearts of ‘flesh.’ 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 doesn’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 isn’t enough to cloud such theological meanderings under the guise of being “nerdy.” 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 doesn’t make it so. So, if it isn’t nerdy and it isn’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 ‘good works’ for us, in Himself, so that we too might participate in the deeps and wides of His Heavenly Kingdom. Deep theology isn’t just for so-called theological nerds (whatever that is supposed to entail); deep theology isn’t “not” 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 you’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 “Orthobro,” short for “Orthodox brother,” but with a “dude” 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 “cage-stage.” Often this terminology is applied to guys who become “Calvinists.” It is that novelty stage where everything is new; where you’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 “only true and Apostolic Church on the earth.” When I reposted his post, my comment was something like: “it’s too bad when people move say from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy (in this case) that they simply can’t say that that’s what they did; without the further sectarian qualification that often attends it.”

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 “orthodoxy.” Ultimately, orthodox teaching is that which conforms perfectly 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 “Dogma” as an eschatological concept. The “dogmas” (i.e., the teachings formally adopted and promulgated by individual churches) are witnesses to the Dogma and stand in a relation of greater or lesser approximation to it. But they do not attain to it perfectly—hence, the inherent reformability of all “dogmas.” Orthodoxy is not therefore a static, fixed reality; it is a body of teachings which have arisen out of, and belong to, a history which is as yet incomplete and constantly in need of reevaluation.” -Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 16. . .. Sola scriptura isn’t solo scriptura (most likely how you’re thinking of it—many do, even those who say they hold to sola). Anyway, I’m more radical than that given my theory of revelation. We won’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 wouldn’t be Latin, but Greek for sure. Other than that, socially and politically you and I seem to be simpatico, as I’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.

Can Christians Still Learn from Steven Lawson’s Teachings and Preachings?

Posted on by

Qualification. This whole post is an exercise in de jure. The basic principle I am getting at on this occasion is to touch on whether or not a sinner, or someone who has been found to be in sin, could have still been used of God to bear witness to Christ in spite of their own personal moral and egregious failures. 

As most know now, at least those in the “right” circles, Dr. Steven Lawson has fallen morally. The church he started in Dallas, TX, Trinity Bible Church, made the announcement a few days ago that Lawson had admitted to being in an “inappropriate relationship with a woman” (a bit of an understatement). Now the news has come out that Lawson has been in an ongoing relationship with a gal in her late twenties (Lawson is 73) for at least five years; and he only admitted to it because the gal’s dad found out about it and threatened to expose it if Lawson himself didn’t. In other words, Lawson’s “coming forward” wasn’t because he was repentant, it was because he got caught; which I’m sure now he’s shedding many tears over (i.e., getting caught).

Suffice it to say, this has produced all types of fallout in the conservative evangelical and Reformed circles Lawson had become a “star” within. He was a fellow of Ligonier Ministries, the late R.C. Sproul’s ministry, and faculty and head of the DMin program at The Master’s Theological Seminary (John MacArthur’s school). As noted, Lawson was founding pastor of his church, and also of an international ministry known as OnePassion; and then of course, I’m sure he was on the board of various and multiple other unnamed ministries worldwide (in fact I know he was). When a high-profile pastor falls to such a besetting sin (which in my view, currently, has predatorial characteristics to it), it is going to produce angst, anger, and grieving of untold magnitude for those who held Lawson up as a model church leader in the respective evangelical world.

In a way there is a parallel here, for me, between Steven Lawson and Karl Barth. As everyone knows I see Barth as a unique theologian for the church of Jesus Christ in ways that go unmatched in regard to his Christ-focusedness, among other things. And yet, as I have already rehearsed much too much already in the past, he lived in an adulterous relationship that he forced upon his wife and family from in and around 1926 till the time of his “mistress’s” death in the 60s. If you don’t know, Charlotte Von Kirschbaum lived in Barth’s house, along with his family. She was his “secretary” and fellow theologian involved in all of his work, with particular focus on his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics. I had heard rumblings of this for years, but it wasn’t till 2017 when Christianne Tietz published an essay that for the first time translated some of Barth’s and von Kirschbaum’s love letters. This was my “Steven Lawson moment,” and I wrote about it; and received lots of pushback on it, from many sectors; and lost connections with many because I dared to highlight it; and more. That said, what became the struggle for me was whether or not I could continue to read and learn from Barth. For me he wasn’t some modern demon, but a faithful explicator of the Word of God; in ways that could be in parallel with the church fathers of the patristic period. And so now, I would imagine, the same question is being pushed upon those who sat under Lawson for so many years and decades. They are wondering whether or not they can ever listen to another sermon preached, or ever read another publication from Lawson again.

In light of my own struggles with this and Barth, I would say: yes. For me this has always come back to the objective reality of the Gospel itself/Hisself. The Gospel is greater than its messengers, than its witnesses. Bobby Grow does not predicate the Gospel, nor does Karl Barth, or Steven Lawson, or anyone. The Gospel and its reality in Jesus Christ stand on the power of His indestructible life, and no filth or sin of those who bear witness to it can smear or corrupt its reality at the Right Hand of the Father. And yes, there can be reproach brought upon the witnesses to the Gospel when the witnesses themselves fall into a variety and sundry sins and immoralities. But ironically, even that reproach is ultimately reversed by the Gospel they have been bearing witness to; even while living in egregious sin. That is to say, the whole point of the Gospel is to bring salvation to sinners; even those who have been given the role to teach and preach it for the church. As James says, ‘the teacher will be under a stricter judgment.’ Indeed, we can see this playing out currently in the life of Lawson. But ultimately, he is not condemned before God in the risen Christ, because Christ is risen. There are some temporal consequences that Lawson will now have to bear up under, and hopefully he will be genuinely repentant; and not just upset that he got caught. Indeed, as long as Steven responds in the right way the Lord can and will use this in his life to prune and shape him more into the man of God God sees him to be in Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, we are all Steven Lawsons and Karl Barths. This is no excuse for engaging in sinful activities, it is simply to acknowledge that we all need to be vigilant in our walks with Christ; we all need to understand that we are in a spiritual battle that we have no resource to fight without being fully dependent upon the One who raises the dead.

I understand there will always be an asterisk next to Lawson’s name. But insofar that the LORD truly used and spoke through him to genuinely bear witness to the risen Christ, it would be foolish to think everything he preached and wrote was all rubbish (bearing in mind I am a heavy critic of the type of Lordship salvation and 5-point Calvinism he was a proponent of). Again, the measure of reality is not Steven Lawson or Karl Barth, it is the reality of the risen Christ and the triune God. We are all sinners while simultaneously being used of God to point people to Christ, if we are.

Contra a Christian Nationalist Christendom and the Crusades

Posted on by

A few weeks back there was a debate on X with reference to the Crusades. Unsurprisingly there are certain Christian Nationalist groups who are promoting the legitimacy and value of the Crusades (and not Billy Graham’s); attempting to justify them in the name of Christ. This all makes sense in the sense that these folks want a resurgence of a certain type of Christendom, primarily of a Protestant hue. I responded thusly,

The Crusades were a function of a Catholic ecclesiopolitical state. They were ostensibly carried out in the name of Jesus Christ; and for the preservation of the Gospel and all its entailments. The last thing Muslims saw, as the sword came crushing through their skulls, was the cross on the crusader’s shield. This was not done in the name of Christ, ultimately; but in the name of a sectarian Latin church who asserted that its authority was simply a prolongation of the incarnation of God on earth. This assertion is neither Christian, or Holy; and therefore, cannot be justified in the name of Jesus Christ.

Are the Western churches even the Church Anymore?

Posted on by

Confusing the various subcultures of Christianity, with the Gospel itself is fleeting. Each Christian tradition has its own idiosyncratic ways of liturgizing, and various parochialisms, and its just straight up weird stuff that they do. For my respective “tribe,” broadly speaking, as an American evangelical, what has become weird is driven by its slavish commitment to consumerism at all costs. Whether it be professional worship bands leading worship (like the folks who didn’t quite make the American Idol cut), the pastor wearing skinny jeans, sporting a mustache, with a man bun, or just the self-help sermons and programs that run amok in such environs, there is a cultural Pelagianism present behind such productions. That is to say, the belief that people, in the main, are simply neutral beings, and that given the proper external stimuli they can be persuaded, one way or the other, to affirm Christ or not; they can be “led” into a situation, through various conditionings (and programs), where, as the theory goes, they will come to feel included in the community. You know the whole “felt needs” and “real needs” combine. One big problem with this is that such seeker sensitive churches get so hyper fixated on meeting peoples’ felt needs—with the rationalization that it’s all being done in the name and claim of the Gospel—that that becomes the end. They are unable, under such inertia, to ever get to the real need; which has been the supposed justification for using the felt needs to begin with.

As an American evangelical who has grown up in this, from its more fundy iteration to where it is now, what I have come to realize, along with many, that such Pelagianistically funded churches really aren’t representative of the church writ large at all. That is not to say that there aren’t “saved” people in the pews all throughout such churches. But it is to say that these people have become used to, and thus expectant of having their ears and eyes tickled with feel good messages; for the most part. After awhile though, the discerning Christian has to start asking at what point such a group ceases to be operating as a real life, Spirit led church, and instead finds its function more in line with some sort of social club (e.g., think of Christian Smith’s adage: moralistic therapeutic deism). None of this is to suggest that the church, this side of the Eschaton, will ever be perfect. But it is to say that at a certain point the Ghost has been given up indeed, and the so-called pastors are nothing more than “hirelings” for cultural dereliction.

For those of us seeking a healthy local church to attend, in such environments, this scenario makes it exceedingly difficult. For me, the pastors involved in this type of tripe are heading for a serious and heavy judgment. In the end, the Gospel cannot be reduced to these church subcultures; and yet often, people do engage in such reductions—and so they become so-called Exvangelicals, Nones, or straight up atheists (of a certain pop type). The Gospel is Christ as attested to and encountered in Holy Scripture. The Gospel is God’s triune Life for the world, and a genuine church is to faithfully bear witness to this deep reality; through deep and stretching teachings, activities, so on and so forth. Outwith this I have a hard time seeing how the apostasies of the Western churches (and elsewhere) can be curbed.