What Mechanism Fixes This?

Published on by D. G. Hart

Ross Douthat describes a world that is hard to square with The Call:

There are many Catholics, as I’ve pointed out before, who dissent from church teaching on various issues in a “soft” way that doesn’t really shape their relationship to the church — and this population may be pretty content with a change in tone and emphasis (and press coverage!) that doesn’t otherwise lead to dramatic shifts. (This is roughly what John Allen has in mind when he describes Francis as potentially “a pope for the Catholic middle.”) Then, in an overlapping category, there are self-defined “liberal Catholics” for whom economic concerns are much more crucial to their self-definition than either moral or theological debates, and who are likely to be similarly content with a papacy that seems to be foregrounding and validating their issues even if it’s also reaffirming traditional doctrine on sex, marriage and the family.

Then at the opposite extreme there are liberal Catholics (and many lapsed and semi-lapsed Catholics) whose vision is more comprehensively hostile to the church as it has existed and exists, and whose temporary happiness with Pope Francis is likely to dissipate in the absence of the kind of sweeping, Protestantizing change that more orthodox believers consider not only undesirable but impossible. Where this category overlaps with the various secular and non-Catholic voices who have embraced the “Good Pope Francis” narrative, you can see the potential for an eventual large-scale backlash, of the kind that Joshua Keating hints at in a piece for Slate today, which ends up dismissing Francis’s grasp for a religious middle as all salesmanship and no substance, and the new pope himself as just another Vatican reactionary.

Then, finally, you have Catholics who are morally/culturally/theologically liberal but also realistic about the ways in which Catholicism can and cannot change — by which mean I mean that they want to see their church address and adapt to certain post-sexual revolution realities, but don’t expect or desire a revolution that suddenly makes every church-versus-culture conflict on these issues disappear.

If Jason and the Callers have an answer, I’d like to know.

53 thoughts on “What Mechanism Fixes This?”

  3. Darryl, a non-answer from CtC is as telling as anything. All’s that’s left, is, whether they are paying attention..

    Like

  4. But discipline is one of the three marks of the true church, over which Christ is supposed to be king.
    Maybe not. Or maybe it isn’t a true church.

    Like

  5. Bob: Tradcats (traditionalist Roman Catholic) say that people who are unrepentant, scandalous and unbelieving have excommunicated themselves. But they don’t expect the Church to anything to such people. So you have gangsters and abortion rights activists going to Mass and getting Catholic funerals.

    BTW, does Tim Keller excommunicate anyone? If some fellow joins his congregation and cheats on his wife, will he, personally, do anything? Will he conform him with his sin and encourage repentance under threat of excommunication? Does anyone even get kicked out of that church, for anything?

    Like

  6. Question for the Protestants – do you think lack of excommunication/discipline in Protestant churches correlates with the size of the church/congregation where perhaps personal interaction with the pastor/leadership is minimal due to size? Or do you see large churches still doing a good job of discipline and so size is not really a great factor? Should pastors set limits on their congregation sizes or grow indefinitely?

    Like

  7. CvD,

    Understand that much of this is mere conjecture and opinion.

    Question for the Protestants – do you think lack of excommunication/discipline in Protestant churches correlates with the size of the church/congregation where perhaps personal interaction with the pastor/leadership is minimal due to size?

    To some degree, yes. The larger the church, the more difficult it is to enact discipline, especially in settings where pastoral care is invested in the hands of only a very few (as little as 1 in many cases). In theory, this should not be as much of a problem in Presbyterianism if the session is of a sufficient size, but even here there has to be constant vigilance to make sure elders are exercising pastoral care.

    Or do you see large churches still doing a good job of discipline and so size is not really a great factor?

    Depends on the large church in question. As a general rule, however, I think that as the church grows in size, there will be a tendency to overlook or fail to enact discipline. Sometimes because people are afraid to do so, but often just because the pastoral staff cannot know everyone personally if the church is too large. It can work in a large church, there just has to be double the effort to make sure it happens. In any case, no church will do it perfectly, but there should be a good-faith attempt, at least. This is what we see almost entirely lacking in modern Rome.

    Should pastors set limits on their congregation sizes or grow indefinitely?

    Hard to be dogmatic about this. If I was a pastor, I probably would. If you get a good group of elders, matters would be different.

    It has been said around here that perhaps Rome has such a problem with discipline because it is so large and because of the way it is structured. I think that is exactly right, if not the whole story. I just don’t see where Rome cares all that much about heresy and orthodoxy anymore. There’s no way I should be a separated brother if it did care. To be fair to Rome, however, these are problems that can plague any church body. And you don’t have to be huge to care little for orthodoxy. There are plenty of small churches that wouldn’t know a heretic if they saw one in person.

    Like

  8. Cletus, the answer in all human associations is scale, what you refer to as subsidiarity, which makes hooey of the notion of having an ecclesiastical monarch who is going to the the mechanism to fix problems. The pope couldn’t do that even when he had territory and soldiers.

    Like

  9. CVD, there’s a reason why non residency was historically a beef with presbyterians in regard to prelacy/rule by bishops – who incidentally didn’t preach regularly if at all, i.e. feed the flock from the Word. How much more the inadequacies of the universal bishop?

    Like

  10. CvD, you’re getting a little lost in the weeds. The simple fact is, no one has a lock on these things. Rome has softened her insistence on herself for us separated brethren, in true Protestant fashion, via VatII. It’s one big, modernist happy family. But in truth, the presbys have no more lock than the Anglicans, than the Charismatics, and on down it goes. And we have no problem saying that.

    But since you ask, we are more of the mind here that, as a general rule, size does not matter. And finish the rest of that jingle for yourself. Adios.

    Like

  11. As long as everyone agrees that discipline is the mechanism that prevents dissent and controversy and infallibility (for RCs) and schism (for protestants) is the mechanism for settling controversy I don’t see the point of the post….

    Like

  13. Kenneth, the discussion worth having between our two camps is what does the word “infallibility” mean. But again, that’s not this post. But I believe you and I disagree on that, unless we agree and you somehow have figured out how to ascribe infallibilty to your church. The only way for you to do that is for your church to do that for you. And again, parting is sweet sorrow, for no protestant agrees to assent to that which you so, here. Take care.

    Like

  14. Kenneth,

    You wrote:

    schism (for protestants) is the mechanism for settling controversy

    Here, maybe this will help:

    “

    But, what we also have to keep in mind is that all presbyters and presbyteries have the obligation to take into account both of these elements; the element that Hodge raised, that is the original historical intent, as well as the historic understanding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. For a presbytery, for example, to act in isolation from the rest of the denomination, saying “not here” no matter what the rest of the church does, is akin to establishing a denomination within a denomination. You don’t want that. I mean, the whole
    idea of a denomination and adhering to a confession and the Westminster Standards is that we agree on all of this. As Alan said, it’s a form of unity. So, whether it’s individuals or presbyteries or what have you, to operate in such a fashion is potentially destructive to the peace and the purity of the church. Now, if there is a matter where a presbyter or presbytery believes that the OPC’s collective understanding, whether formally or informally, is of a serious nature, then there are, of course, proper channels. There are overtures to the General Assembly. There are trials, bringing charges or, of course, there is also peaceable withdrawal. But, what we have to recognize is this –and this is something that I haven’t mentioned much, but perhaps it’s important that I do mention it here- we have to remember that confession subscription is inherently a churchly matter. It’s not one of personal preference. And, it goes hand in hand with our mutual submission to our brothers.

    ”

    This is a better way to express what we as protestants believe. You still come off as a propagandist, which is kinda caller-like. I could just as easily ask you: what’s your point in posting you think we don’t have a point?

    Regards,
    Andrew

    Like

  15. And, Ken, I’ve way hijacked this thread, so this is my last (for reals). What’s written above is, in my opinion, much superior in many ways to your position, which is for me to not belong to your church, must mean I am invincibly ignorant (or that I somehow implicitly belong to your church? do I have that right?). In other words, if someone doesn’t like us, they are free to leave, without fear of their salvation being on the line. I think we need to distinguish between churches that disagree over fundamentals of the faith, and churches that by and large agree, and yet remain separate. In our church, we work to partner with like minded communions, but there simply shouldn’t be a “one world government” when it comes to the church, IMHO. It’s unreasonable to ask of people, though of course, we can always work for further unity.

    Like

  17. How does discipline prevent dissent? Given the premium given on religious freedom and freedom of conscience by society at large (and the RC church in particular), it seems to me that trying to prevent dissent is tilting at windmills. As V2 states,

    This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power…

    Of course this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t argue for what you believe to be true (as the document says), but I don’t see how you square this idea that one should impose discipline in order to squelch dissent (unless of course you believe the council erred… but I guess private judgment is not allowed and the document must be perspicuous right?). In other words, your church doesn’t just suck at it right now, it has infallibly declared your approach out of bounds.

    While certain c-list philosophers like to play make believe and pretend that history is molded by philosophical first principles (and I thought this Schaefer-ian approach to historical analysis was thoroughly debunked), the reality is that the explosion of protestant sects (particularly in America) has to do with the sociological implications of political recognition religious freedom (that just so happens was endorsed by V2 – 200 years late, but whadya gonna do?).

    The law protects our right to leave one church and form another – borrowing whatever elements we want along the way. Our wealth, political stability, and mobility create an environment where creating new denominations is not costly. The consumerist/capitalist/entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes Americans gives us the impetus to go about forming denominations.

    What I find remarkable is how much order has spontaneously emerged from what certain wanna be philosophers predict would be chaos. One can go into most any evangelical church (Assembly of God, SBC, Calvary Chapel, Willow Creek Association – which includes some UMCs, PCA, EvFree, Evan Friends, etc…) and you will sing mostly the same songs, in the same order, see support for the same parachurch organizations (go YL/Navs/Cru!), find the pastor is reading the same commentaries to construct his sermon on how to have a better marriage, read the same books, and use the same SS curriculum materials ( I was surprised when I visited First Pres Columbia SC, where Sinclair Ferguson was pastor, and saw that they used WillowCreek curriculum for Children’s church and VBS). Most congregants would be hard pressed to guess the denomination without seeing the name and have no problem working and worshiping together (think PromiseKeepers). The variation among these churches is smaller than than the variations one gets from among RC congregations in my experience. The schism, such as it is, is a formality. To be sure I am not extolling the benefits of evangelicalism – only pointing out that there is far more unity than you seem to be willing to give them credit for. Interestingly enough, of all of the denominations of significant size, the youth in the Assembly of God are the most orthodox of all Christians – curious no?

    As far as catholicity goes, it seems to me that the PCA (for example) is far more catholic than the RC church in the sense that we open our table to all Christian believers in good standing in their church. You guys are welcome to join the party – just stop insisting on a false gospel that rests on the traditions of men rather than the word of God. We may continue to disagree on all sorts of things, but we need not be divided at the table any longer. Maybe I’ll give Francis a call and see if what we can do…HA!

    Like

  18. DGHART,

    yes I understood the question. I’m curious as to what your aim was. Did you merely wish to point out that the RCC could do better in the area of discipline? Or was there something more lurking?

    sbd,

    come now. Surely you jest. The Church teaches that we shouldn’t force someone to convert to RCs not that it can not discipline and excommunicate its own members. We have already discussed unity at length and I don’t want to hijack the thread off topic.

    Like

  19. A church that wants to keep itself to a restricted membership of 100-200 does exercise caution in whom they allow to join.

    I went through about 40 hours of membership classes, interviews, due diligence, discussions with my Pastor before being allowed the privilege of joining.

    Any baggage that you bring is exposed and “perhaps this won’t be the right place for you” would be a card played wisely and classily.

    Like

  22. Ken, is it your contention that Vat2 didn’t change your church substantially? I don’t think it is. The only option open to you, it seems to me, is to write off Vat2 as unbinding, to some degree. Must be rough, sorry, pal. Don’t mind mopey dopey over here, I’m just an observer. There’s always the OPC if your church goes to far, and we’re working in her, as she too is always in need if reform. Have a good day.

    Like

  23. KENLOSES, page and line yourself. Where have Protestants ever said that our mechanism for discipline was schism? It’s fine for you to engage in RC versions of Jack Chick. It’s not okay for you to act like everyone else has to play by different rules.

    Like

  24. Kenneth,

    The threat of death for going against the pope is not a forced conversion tactic how? Do I need to remind you of the Inquisition? What about stealing babies from Jewish families and baptizing them without consent?

    Like

  25. Robert,

    can you provide for me the official Church teaching that states that we should steal babies and baptize them without consent? Remember you said that *dogma* had changed. Let me go ahead and quote the page and line for dear DG

    Speaking of changes in dogma…

    your contention is that the RCC has dogmatically defined that stealing babies and forcing conversion is permissible. Ready to back that up now? Didn’t think so…. You are usually better than this… Old life must be rubbing off in you.

    DGHART,

    I didn’t even think it was a point of contention between us that schism is how you all handle dissent. Andrew seems to agree with me and has explicitly stated as much in previous posts. Maybe you guys should huddle up and figure out what real true really really reformed people believe on this issue.

    For the record, I said that discipline was how everyone prevents dissent and keeps a healthy Church. But what happens when dissent becomes full fledged theological controversy with everyone taking sides and splitting up? Well, for RCs we have an infallible ecumenical council or else an excathedra pronouncement from the Pope…. For protestants you have schism and the formation of new denominations…. What about this is controversial?

    Like

  26. Kenneth, read the quote above, again. Schism is a tragedy, but can be necessary, given the nature of having a fallible church. Our solution is through committee to seek unity with churches who are not yet united with us. There’s lots of work to do. That’s different than saying schism is way of dealing with discipline. We’re mixing apples and oranges when we talk of dealing with individuals vs. the corporate body. For RCs, I’ve read you guys in combox statements, and it’s like a joke that “hey, I could go start my own denom in Protestantism.”

    By the way, my views are simply that. Im ready to be corrected, but we are just on a blog, here. You really haven’t shown much desire to learn what we believe, so I scratch my head. I’m really sorry for any confusion, in my naivete, I try to help with all this. With that, I stop.

    Like

  27. Andrew,

    I have never said that protestants use schism as means of discipline. If I have then show me where. It is an incontrovertible fact that schism is the only mechanism available to a protestant when significant theological controversy arises. That’s just the way it is when you hold to a fallible church…. You can hold ecumenical committees all you like the result won’t change. There has never been a golden age of protestant unity. The reformers were squabbling and bashing each other from the very start.

    Like

  28. Sure there was, Ken, in the 11th century, before Protestantism began..

    That’s a joke, by the way

    Look, man, now I can talk about the problems in RCism and how you aren’t united either. We’ve both been around the block, by now. There’s a place for this comboxxing like you and I are doing. All the world can see, forever. But both our communions have problems, so we have work to do. I disagree with RCism, as does my church, but we can pray for a day when that will not be so.

    I really need to stop, now, though. It’s been nice talking with you, here, since you started. I enjoy our time together, and hope when you are done, you don’t view us here too negatively. Take care.

    Like

  29. @CvD —

    I’ve seen churches with thousands of members that discipline effectively. Just to pick someone close to Old Lifer crowd theologically, MacArthur’s church has 8500 regulars are pretty aggressive at discipline.

    Like

  30. It is an incontrovertible fact that schism is the only mechanism available to a protestant when significant theological controversy arises.

    Bull. The most common mechanism available is compromise and discussion. That’s how cross evangelical parachurch organizations function. We see a good example of a major resolution in just this generation regarding baptism. There has been a huge issue about what to do about people who attend evangelical churches, were baptized as infants and don’t want to rebaptize. Piper has pushed for a compromise that while painful is becoming normative.

    a) A person is responsible for declaring his own baptism valid. So they can remain a member even if they don’t have a credobaptism.
    b) A member of a baptist church shouldn’t baptize their children, i.e. they can’t practice paedobaptism on others.

    There have been other examples in previous generations.

    Like

  31. Just to pick someone close to Old Lifer crowd theologically, MacArthur’s church has 8500 regulars are pretty aggressive at discipline.

    meh….

    Like

  32. PS Ken,

    When I found on Bryan’s blog his criticism of Darryl’s writing from 2009, I realized that whatever theological thing I thought I had uncovered to share with RCs at CtC had already been discussed in an online forum somewhere. I endeavored to spend time sharing about my experience as a reformed Christian, instead. That doesn’t relativize truth, but rather, if we are Christians, the Holy Spirit is working in our lives, and we can benefit other strangers by sharing about it. Dunno if this is all worth writing about, just maybe something to think on..

    Like

  33. Kenneth,

    I’m familiar with the ways Rome tries to sharply separate dogma and practice, as if that is even possible. Both kidnapping babies and the Inquisition were approved acts of the church based on the dogma that there is no salvation possible outside of the church. If you have have an ex opere operato sacramental system and believe union with the Roman Church is the only way to salvation, then you better believe the aforementioned acts are permissible, justified, and even praiseworthy, especially if you have a real concern for the eternal state of people’s souls (a concern that is, in itself, quite laudable). That such things are not permissible anymore reflects a change in what it means to be united to the Roman church. That is a dogmatic change, no matter how you slice it.

    Like

  34. Andrew:When I found on Bryan’s blog his criticism of Darryl’s writing from 2009, I realized that whatever theological thing I thought I had uncovered to share with RCs at CtC had already been discussed in an online forum somewhere.

    — yup

    I endeavored to spend time sharing about my experience as a reformed Christian, instead.

    — that’s what I enjoy doing, it’s hard though, for a million reasons… learning what we believe as NAPARC P&R (and a few other good friends) would be the obvious first step, it’s a big one though, and many dismiss the need for it, sadly…

    Like

  35. PPS ken, if I misrepresented you,my apologies, as the wires in my brain do misfire at times. Hence,I remain anon, and disappear (emoticon). Later.

    Like

  36. Robert,

    W-E-A-K

    CDH,

    Yes of course there are other *possibilities* just as there are other *possibilities* within the actual church when it comes to resolving significant theological disputes. We can always “dialog” pray for world peace, sing campfire songs together, etc…. But at the end of the day the historical record speaks for it self. 9 times out of 10 when theological controversy arises in a Prot denomination schism follows. Pick any denomination you like and we can trace it on down the centuries.

    Like

  37. CvD (James?) must have liked our answers…

    Bi-polar is treated with Lithium they say?

    Whoever said this blog attracts some interesting flies was on to something.

    Like

  38. Andrew,

    Yes I appreciated everyone’s perspectives. And James concurs. So does Jack and John. Stop lurking at ccc and join in on the fun. Come as you are though, but if lithium gets me to nirvana, I’ll have to give it a go.

    Like

  39. I’ll stop lurking. Let me show you the treatment out there sometime. I know where I posted and got responses, JamesJackJohnCvD recreational user, you. I never forget a “friendly” encounter (emoticon).

    Like

  40. KENLOSES, schism is sin. To say that we maintain unity by sin is not exactly charitable. It’s like saying you keep unity by worshiping a man (the pope).

    Discipline, if you ever had any, would result in some people being in, and others being out. That’s what happens when churches divide, or when the pope recognizes a new order.

    Like

  42. Cletus, I’m so happy, cuz today I found my friends. They’re in my head.
    With All Apologies to Jed for this reference.

    Like

  43. DGHART,

    OK gotcha. I didn’t think it was a point of contention. I remember hearing Kenneth Samples speak once about how sometimes it is necessary for a group to split (schism) from a community if the church in question fell into serious error/sin. I have always thought this was the go to mechanism for protestants. I mean, how did the OPC, PCA, LCMS, etc get formed? Frankly doc, I don’t see how this is deniable. Discipline certainly can mean that some are in and some are out…. But not necessarily. Sometimes a couple sanctions and harsh correction is enough. I might even argue that this is the case most of the time. Problems occur whenever a heretical movement gets left unchecked and is able to build momentum. This is the case imo within the Church today. Modernist theology and sacrilege has gotten off with a slap on the wrist for so long that it is just rampant. I do envy the discipline that your sect appears to enjoy.

    Like

  44. Kenneth, just one last appearance here, as I stay and keep my 2 year old company fro get him to sleep. If there’s something you find in our ways attractive, that’s cool, and I hate to discourage that. However, I would wonder if you are experiencing some feeling of “the grass is always greener” syndrome. I’ll be the first to admit, our church has issues, man. And 12 years here hasn’t always been a cake walk. I’m very serious about it, I’m not sure I would wish the “OPC experience,” on my worst enemy….

    All thst being true, of course, my church is wonderful, through thick and thin, she is home for me and my family. Despite James’ encouragement for me to stop lurking at Jason’s blog, I was curious to see what he was saying, and low and behold, the topic was the protestant view of justification. It’s not just lip service, I really do have an affinity for our doctrine. Or else, I wouldnt have made it this far. JV Fesko’s book, “Justification” is excellent for understanding our postion, and it’s what I referenced when James was putting me in my place, regarding Augustine. I’ve lurked long enough at Jason’s site to see, even him, praising Fesko. He’s the man I quoted above. If you like anything you find out here, dont give up asking questions and finding out what makes us tick. One of us will keep going with you, or any honest seeker, for sure. I think my son fell asleep, onto my other tasks. Thanks for chatting with me these last days and weeks. This website is where ingress, maybe we will talk again in six months. Do take care. Regards, Andrew

    Like

  45. Muddy,

    If I were married to Courtney Love, I might have been tempted to make friends with the voices in my head too. But, hey, what does a bipolar guy like me know anyway? I’ll just keep on strolling on, trying to make it with some existential duct tape, elbow grease, smoke & mirrors and total dependence on grace…basically like the rest of you hooligans.

    As for this discussion bipolar considerations aside, even though my time constraints have kept me out of some of the RC dialogues lately – I think it basically boils down to a correlation between the two categories Bob in What About Bob? lays out – “There are two kinds of people in this world: those who like Niel Diamond, and those who don’t…my ex-wife liked Niel Diamond.” Except the categories would be; there are those who can acknowledge the flaws and inconsistencies in their church and those who can’t… the Callers can’t. Short of doubling back and acknowledging that since the 13th century they have been going seriously awry, and a lot of issues are back on the table for reconsidering – the use of birth control being the very least of these matters, I see no mechanism available for Rome to address their most glaring inconsistencies. There’s a better chance for the political class in America acknowledging that the US behaves far more like an empire than a constitutional republic, than for Rome to reform much more than the color of the curtains at the Vatican.

    Like

  46. KENLOSES, you’re in the world of Chick comics again. How did the ROMAN Catholic church get started? I could say the schism of 1054. How’s that work for you?

    Like

  47. Jed, too busy for the interwebs? Pshaw.

    My experience, was it does ease up. In a few years…

    Great to see you out here, fellow CA and otherwise righteous bro. Great insight on psychology, I figure my insghts comes from the ‘ol “it takes one to know one.”

    Since you say you’ve been out for the latest brand of RC thought shared out here, it’s all business as usual, as far as I can see. Let me know, and I can give you further the skinny. But something tells me, you already know the drill and standard operating procedure out here, yadda yards yadda.

    Lates.

    Like

  48. Jed, sorry for any cross-posting, but Murray forgot a third category of people in the world: those of us who like Neil Diamond because he was our father’s music. I am I said.

    ps speaking of Diamond and modernity, not only could its powers bring us Calminians and Bapterians, but also a secular Jew producing Xmas music.

    Like

  49. DGHART,

    but of course the Roman Catholic Church began with Christ and the apostles. It is the Eastern Church that is guilty of schism. At least…. That is what I would retort to your 1054 sound bite.

    Like

  50. Kenneth,

    Ask an EO, and he might answer differently, and if you believe in apostolic succession EO’s have equally compelling lineages as RC’s. I really think it is important to just be practical here, while the RCC of 1054 looks substantially different than the RCC of today, it is a good starting point to understanding when it began to develop into it’s own distinct branch of Christianity.

    Like

  51. Kenneth —

    Sure since we are on an OPC board lets take today’s PCUSA.
    old side / new side united
    old school / new school united
    old light / new light united and then united with them
    welsh joined
    united and free presbyterians joined

    etc… I see a 300 year or so history of them resolving more schims by about 1.8 to 1.

    Like

  52. KENLOSES, well, if the church began with Christ and the apostles, wouldn’t that be the Jerusalem Catholic Church? Rome was an outlier (or Paul had as much of a claim on Rome as Peter, and Paul was the apostle to the goyim which included Italians).

    Like

  53. Dr. Hart,

    There you go with that church history stuff again. If you don’t stop, people might get the idea that it’s actually relevant to the issues at hand.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.