Skip to main content

Clarity Time: You Have No "Church"

I know I shouldn't get frustrated. Evangelicals don't know the mess they're actually in. They can't. The imperatives of Sola Scriptura do what they do. You have to account and explain for the reality of visible Christian division, and conceiving of the church universal as invisible seems to solve the most pressing problem, which is how Christians could be united when their visible communities so obviously aren't. More than the apparent obvious division, which any snarky papist could use simply as a talking point, is the dogmatic uncertainty this push for a false unity tries to hide.

The reality is this: Christians under the paradigm of Sola Scriptura do not agree on major points of dogma and Christian practice.

Just exactly how will you have a coherent Christian answer to any question?

Some people within smaller "conservative" communities are doing yeoman work, rediscovering natural law, ancient creeds, and all manner of things, and for that, I'm grateful. I'll save you time in this argument: all those things you're rediscovering are Catholic things. For all the rhetorical flourishes about the Reformers not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the Church of Rome is the baby.

At this point, an objection is raised: "You're divided, too!" And that's true. But we also have a notion of free will, that in fact, the Church has solemnly defined its teaching, and Catholics are choosing to dissent. It's not intrinsic to the paradigm itself. The "Church" as you define it can't define anything, because it doesn't actually exist. When someone says, "The church should do better on..." or even, "We the church as the Body of Christ should..." only the speaker knows what the referent "church" is supposed to be. Even if two or three people agree notionally that it is "all those who name Christ as Lord and Savior," exactly how is that to be accomplished? As a side issue, isn't it exhausting, having to answer for every person who claims to be a Christian? No wonder all these people are frustrated with the "Church"! What else could you be?

I'll say it again: Pretty much every single person who returns "home" to the Catholic Church started by asking, "What is the Church?"

It's not a mystery why the shortest flight back as it were, is through sexual ethics. There are plenty of people who have decided that Jesus doesn't care about that stuff. Still others, of course, naturally ask, "Why would God change His mind about this?" (He wouldn't.) You gonna tell Nadia Bolz-Weber she's betrayed Christ on sexual ethics? "Who died and made you Pope?"

That's why my other inquiring question was, "How do I know what I know, with respect to Christ, and the gospel?" Or, "Where does dogma come from?"

I get it, brethren. Submitting to the pope is not going to be easy. We know; we lived through all of them. But how much more can you lose, before you can't recognize Christianity anymore?

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...

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...

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...