Darrell Dow writes,
I’m uncertain if there is tangible evidence rather than mere anecdote, but it appears that men with rightist convictions about politics and the world (e.g., revelation trumps reason, hierarchy is better than egalitarianism, human nature is not plastic, culture and politics are downstream from peoplehood, etc.) are moving toward Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Why? It seems that in the midst of chaos, uncertainty and alienation, they are seeking something that at least has the appearance of order, stability, and tradition.
Bret responds,
1.) There is severe contradiction here. We are told that men with rightist convictions are those who believe revelation trumps reason and yet Rome has never believed in Revelation, choosing instead to own a Thomist position where the intellect is not completely fallen and so reason can cooperate with revelation. Nobody who belongs to Rome as Rightist convictions when it comes to this issue.
2.) Another contradiction is to think that culture is downstream of peoplehood. Culture is theology poured over ethnicity. Neither are downstream of the other but together they forge the stream called culture. If we say that culture is downstream of peoplehood it seems we commit ourselves to a materialistic view of culture.
3.) The word “Appearance” above is key. Rome has always been about the smells and bells and as such shallow people are attracted to things that appear to have gravitas. However, Protestantism has indeed made a mistake here with their often strict iconoclasm (regulative principle-ism) or their often cheesy gimmicky “worship.” It is our own fault that people are leaving Protestantism given the embarrassingly shallow “Bad Neil Diamond concert” that is being offered up as worship in Protestant churches.
4.) People who are indeed fleeing to Rome and Constantinople to find gravitas will soon enough be disillusioned unless they are total mindless bots willing to follow fools in vestments.
DD wrote,
Modern Protestantism sanctifies schism. The slogans semper reformanda and the priesthood of believers, untethered from binding authority, create an ecclesiology in which schism is not a failure but a feature and can be recast as purification, growth, and mission. Every disagreement turns into a hill to die on as men seek to micro-manage the affairs of others rather than leaving that task to an actual priest.
Bret responds,
1.) Rome has every bit the schism in it that Protestants do. The only difference is that Rome is able to keep all this schism in a organizational unity. The unity Rome has is not genuine. Does anybody believe that there is ideological/”Theological” unity that exists between those who still esteem Trent and those who esteem Vatican II? Unity as between the Charismatic Catholics and the Dominicans? Yet Rome keeps all their schism in one tent and then BS’s people that, unlike Protestants, they have unity.
2.) In terms of solutions to problems … well, it all depends on which Priest one gets as to what solution one will get.
3.) This criticism sounds like someone who well understands our problems and wishes that there were other expressions of Christianity that didn’t have those same macro problems. However, Rome is every bit as schismatic, divided, and bedeviled with a lack of authority that anybody respects except as on paper. How many people really believe that the Priest is the voice of god?
4.) Look, nobody hates more the current condition of the Protestant Church in America but the only thing that is worse than the current Protestant Church in America is the current Roman Catholic church across the world. Same goes for EO.
DD wrote,
Churches become provisional arrangements awaiting correction. An ecclesiocentrism where the church is the center of life becomes one more off-ramp to division. “Church planting” provides the moral alibi because, after all, division is not failure but multiplication! It’s not rivalry, it’s evangelism! The result is an ecclesiology in which impotence is spiritualized, authority becomes like a visit to the buffet, and the gospel is endlessly re-launched.
Bret responds scratching his head,
If you want to avoid ecclesiocentrism don’t go to Rome or Constantinople.
Generally speaking though, I completely agree here. However, I would only add that Rome is all the above minus ever having the Gospel. One could attend the ideal Roman Catholic Church or EO Church and there find the outward trappings to be just fine – even excellent … all the while putting their soul in the hands of demons.
Some people have never studied so as to understand how anti-Christ Rome and EO is. They have never done the reading. When one understands that … when one understands how demonic Rome is, one could never even hint at the superiority of Rome to the real abysmal and ugly failure of modern pseudo-Protestantism.
I do hear though that the Mormons are excellent at unity, church planting, and evangelism.
DD wrote,
On the other hand, one looks at the contemporary denominational landscape within Protestantism and wonders why any prudent group of men would join it at all. The institutions have proven unable either to maintain fidelity or to correct themselves without disintegration. Faced with corrupt and often dumb denominational bureaucracies, reasonable men do what reason permits—they leave! But because exit is the only available tool, it becomes the default setting. The result is not reform but exhaustion, kicking the can down the road for the next division.
Bret responds,
Unfortunately, all true.
DD writes,
Until we recover some credible form of authority–which involves something more than shouting Sola Scriptura– that can punish corruption without demanding perpetual schism, decentralization will remain both necessary and fatal. It’s the very definition of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Bret responds,
Well, ideally Confessionalism is supposed to be that answer.
Still, in the end I would rather have the problems we have w/ our lack of authority than the problem that would present itself to a return to a time when the Church could be absolutely dead wrong and yet had to be supported upon pain of ostracization or worse.
Most of us hate the current zeitgeist in the Protestant church, but any idea that the false church … the demonic church … the Christ hating Church of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy is an option that absolutely buries the needle on empty.
I have no problem with cursing the darkness. I just find it unacceptable to hint in any way that even darker darkness is preferred to the darkness we are properly cursing.
I’ve never been into praying the rosary or kissing icons but, if by their fruits ye shall know them, the EO church has a track record of suffering severe persecution and martyrdom in speaking truth to power that should put Protestant professors to shame. Solzhenitsyn and Codreanu come to mind. By contrast, the Protestant churches have become downright bourgeois in trying to play both sides of a divided allegiance between God and Mammon.
You need to look a wee bit more into the compromise of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Commies in Russia during and after the Bolshevik Revolution.
Also, good works done with the purpose of currying favor with God, thus putting Him in your debt, are, by definition, not good works.
Some of the most “good working” people I know are Roman Catholics and EO types because they are trying to earn their standing w/ God.
It’s true that Protestants have their problems … but those problems are nothing in comparison to those who embrace a anti-Christianity Christianity.