Skip to main content

You're Both Right

I don't find it ironic that Leithart's prosecutor is now Catholic. If you talk to him, it makes perfect sense. Jason Stellman has always been an ecclesial Christian; that is, his faith has always been a faith received. Once you make that decision, and investigate it to the end, the Catholic Church is inevitable. If you purge that highly ecclesial sensibility of the random individualist elements, (like Sola Scriptura) Mother Church is all that remains. Let's just be blunt: Leithart is a more perfect fundamentalist; he's read a lot of books, and he's got buckets of sympathy for the Church, at least insofar as it serves to obscure the central truth: he is his own arbiter of what counts as divine revelation.

R. Scott Clark has roundly criticized the Federal Vision for being out of accord with traditional Reformed theology; he's right. But people like Rich Lusk have pointed out that the story with the sacraments has never been as stark as Clark says. He's right, too. And here's the kicker: this is evidence for the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. Would you not expect two communities that were once one to share affinities? Lusk says, "Look back here! We share affinities!" But there are reasons why we are not one. Clark is there to remind people of those things. That is, Clark represents that which defines itself in opposition to the Catholic Church. In a way, he should. That's why those communities were founded in the first place.

I breathed deeply of that FV air, and I can tell you that most of them don't realize the ecclesial implications of what they say. They have recovered something of Catholic truth without knowing this is what they have done. They earnestly believe they have recovered an authentic charism of God from within their tradition. They're right. Something has to give. You either pretend that trans-communal theological continuity isn't an authentic work of the Holy Spirit, or you ignore the ecclesial implications of having recognized it, by making the Church invisible. Or, you become Catholic. If you become Catholic, you can recognize the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Church, AND recognize the visible, ecclesial implications of it. LG, 8.

Come home, Rich. We have what you're looking for. James and Peter, we have what you're looking for, too. God already thought of your insights, and he gave them as treasures to the Catholic Church. Dr. Clark, does it really seem reasonable that Jesus Christ left His brothers in darkness until 1517?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...