I'll say on Jill Dillard (nee Duggar) and the documentary: highly recommend reading her book and skipping the documentary. The book is a quick read, and the interview with her and her husband are the only parts of the documentary worth watching. Too much of the documentary consists of bloviating from literal Reddit atheists, and that time would be better spent reading the book and learning more context around her and her husband's comments.
>Gothard himself also demonstrated the general gullibility of evangelicals. Gothard is and was single and has never married or had children, yet people accepted his parenting advice largely without questioning his lack of practical experience.
I feel for the incels, but in my experience it's an unfortunate yet evergreen heuristic that one should be very, very slow to trust never-married men in positions of responsibility or leadership. Surely this has to go at least quadruple when he's purporting to be a guru for parenting advice, openly surrounds himself with beautiful girls and young women, and fails to abide by the Billy Graham Rule!
>Congregational government is often a dictatorship in practice and Gothard types who hear voices and claim God told them something get shut down quickly by grumpy, pipe-smoking Reformed elders, and if they don’t, the broader, regional body of governing elders will.
I'll admit that I have a bias towards congregational polity, out of concern that more complex arrangements are perpetually vulnerable to Conquest's Second Law, which is to say institutional capture by hostile forces. But you raise a valid point that while congregational polity may work reasonably well for the well-educated upper-middle class, others may benefit from more robust checks and balances.
I should read her book, though I think I got the gist from listening to her interviews on Stuckey's podcast. There's no panacea with churches, I agree, and it's usually better to look at actual choices locally, pros and cons, than be rigid in one's preferences.
Greatly enjoyed this article. Tom, have you ever considered taking a leave of absence from your business in order to be involved vocationally in national politics? Not as a candidate, but as an advisor. Your breadth of knowledge could help mitigate some of the more stupid inclinations of politicians who actually have a chance at restoring our nation to sanity and civility.
Thanks for your kind comment. I enjoy my life and politics interests me much less than it used to. I think the future of the USA is more or less something like Brazil and it's too late to change that, and I expect our politics to follow. Writing and thinking remains a fun hobby, and unfortunately politics is mostly about money, and the table stakes nationally are billions to make a difference. At the margins, I am involved to a very limited degree behind the scenes at the state level.
That's historically "wrong", for lack of a better word (research New Testament variants for the details).
But even granting that statement, does it matter that the base text didn't change when each generation of religious leaders (including Catholics) re-interprets the Bible? Exodus 22:18 says we need to kill witches; the church did so for centuries, now we don't so much. The base text didn't change, but to say the Bible is "unchanging" without acknowledging the huge variance in interpretation every so often is disingenuous.
I halfway agree with you, as Bible interpretation is unfalsifiable at the margins. That said, there's enough that's clear to give one a lifetime of sanctification.
Was Jesus divine, was the question of Arianism correctly decided? We know who won, but to say the winners "proved" their case isn't true. There are easily a dozen Biblical verses that flat-out state Jesus wasn't divine, when read literally. Modern Christianity interprets their clear meaning away, but it's confirmation bias: since the verse cannot mean what it plainly says, we're forced to interpret our way around that reading.
In more modern debates, what about New Covenant Theology? The New Testament is absolutely clear that each of the NCT variants is true or false, depending on the verses chosen. Are same-sex relations an abomination? Does a fetus have a soul? (If you can prove your answer, the Southern Baptists arguing about those issues would like a word.) Whatever; you have to define "the margins" pretty carefully to argue NCT isn't central to modern Christianity.
Then just look at passages where all variants agree, you still get the main points across.
A range of interpretations is not the same as infinite decision space. The fact of base text existing means that things can cycle back around to old interpretations after long periods of time.
I agree with you most variants are consistent. While there are theologically interesting passages that were arguably later additions to the text ("Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."), the variants largely agree.
I disagree with your statement that "you still get the main points across". A book that has spawned tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and is flexible enough to act as a base text for the Eastern Orthodox Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses -- at the same time -- cannot be said to get its main points "across".
Well Orthodox/Catholic hold tradition as equally binding, Mormons have a separate book, and Mormon/Jehovah's Witnesses believe all early texts were corrupted.
Thoughtful article that explains the Duggar phenomenon really well.
Just a comment on priestly celibacy: might I suggest your take on it is a bit worldly, and underestimates God's ability to work in human lives. A man genuinely called to the priesthood who does his part in continually responding to that call is given the grace he needs to carry out his vocation joyfully and fruitfully. It's not about naturally having the spiritual gift of celibacy being an indication of one's call to the priesthood.
I've always taught my Protestant children to never underestimate Catholicism and its intellectual tradition. But I do disagree on this issue. It's not that I don't think it's possible for someone to receive the grace necessary despite a bad policy, but rather that such a policy will statistically attract hypocrites who will hide their lack of celibacy or abnormal sexuality in numbers that will overwhelm the faithful, and those hypocrites will find each other and take over the church hierarchy at the highest levels. Some of the most conservative Catholic groups already acknowledge this to be the case with the post-Vatican-II popes. As a parent, I would be uncomfortable in my gut with my child being around unmarried men in positions of church authority; it strikes me as a dangerous situation statistically. And if it's required by neither Scripture nor tradition, why have such a stumbling block?
"As a parent, I would be uncomfortable in my gut with my child being around unmarried men in positions of church authority; it strikes me as a dangerous situation statistically."
There's reasonable statistical evidence that sex offenders are as likely to be married or married and divorced as other American men. (See "The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study" for one backing document. And to forestall the deluge of other documents, I will cheerfully agree there are other studies that refute that study; it's a messy area and well, "people lie".)
As a parent, I would be uncomfortable in my gut with my child being alone with any male authority figure.
The issues you point to are valid, especially with regard to larger than warranted numbers of homosexual clergy who appear to have developed blackmail networks and whatnot within the hierarchy.
Certainly the institution of celibate policy had practicalities associated with control of church property back in the day. But I think there was something more to it that still pertains - and that is that a celibate is a unique sign and witness to Gods grace and Christ’s presence among us. They are men set apart for something *really* special. Nothing practical about it. That’s the point, and it’s important. No married family man can give himself wholly to the service of Gods people like a celibate can. Imaging Christ in that particular and vital way.
As a parent I understand and share your concern about the safety of children. I just don’t believe that a married clergy is the answer. The naïveté and blind trust that Catholic parents used to confer on any priest is long gone, parishes have instituted pretty rigorous policies and practices to protect children - and protect priests themselves. I think it’s almost unthinkable at this point that priests - or any unrelated adult - are left alone with children.
My brother was groomed and probably molested by his 5th grade public school teacher, a married father of several children. Predators can hide in plain sight.
Also, I do think better screening for seminaries and better formation programs is necessary and hopefully starting to happen.
There are lots of issues with the hierarchy, but I don’t see a mere policy change to married priests as some sort of magic bullet. Sure, it might solve some problems (tho I’m highly skeptical of the pedophile one) but surely will create at least as many more.
So, as a Catholic convert myself I want to push you a little on this. Anon's comment is facially absurd, but why is it absurd? Because obviously the vocation to the priesthood is not identical to or coterminous with the vocation to celibacy (this can be demonstrated from both ends. Women religious are called to celibacy but not to the priesthood. And every time an Eastern Rite bishop ordains a married man he presumably believes, like a Latin bishop before mandatory celibacy would have believed, that this man is called to the priesthood without being called to celibacy).
But in refuting Anon have we proved too much? Don't things get tricky? Haven't we now forced ourselves to acknowledge that it's possible for a man of good will to be genuinely called to the priesthood without being genuinely called to celibacy (that is, called to the celibacy as a positive good and for it's own sake not as a means to something else)? And indeed, as Larry Chapp pointed out a few years ago, if a priest who longs for family life is white-knucking his way through celibacy because he loves Christ and the priesthood more than anything, that seems like pretty good evidence that the man is both called to the priesthood and genuinely not called to celibacy. So why should the church have forced that choice on him, when there's obviously nothing intrinsic to the priesthood that requires it?
- I don’t think celibacy is a vocation. The Catholic priesthood is *a* vocation that normally (but not always - eg an Anglican convert who was married and ordained, an eastern rite priest per your example) entails celibacy.
Because the Church says so.
That might be an unsatisfying answer, but honestly arguing about church policy- esp at that level- isn’t a productive or fruitful use of spiritual energy or time. It’s not a democracy, so my or your opinion doesn’t matter at all.
Sure, there are many “issues” one can point to as Tom Owens has, but if that is a stumbling block to one’s faith, I don’t think logically reasoning it out is going to be helpful.
That said, as i mentioned in another comment, I do see a celibate priesthood as a particular and vital sign of Gods grace and Christ’s presence in the church. A celibate priest images Christ in a particular, ritual way, and can wholly give himself as a “bride” to the bridegroom and serve Gods people in a way a married father cannot.
I came here from Aaron Renn's link. A very good commentary that I agree with. I think your point about there being differing degrees of sin is true, biblically supported and greatly needed. I was trained at God's Bible College, (Wesleyan Arminian / Holiness) which would be considered fundamentalist and or legalistic. Yet, for myself, coming from a family with sexual abuse and porn, the enforced modesty was a blessing. I was healed by it. Yes, there is a great difference between lust (coveting) and actual adultery. Not the least in that the number of rippling ramifications are multiplied in actual physical adultery. The number of interwoven sins is enormous.
I agree that overall a presbyterian form of government is the most healthy. I was a missionary in Asia for 20 years and saw many churches in trouble. Those with some type of outside authority had the chance to resolve the problem but the independent congregations were often consumed by the problem. But, yes there is the danger that the upper leadership will be captured by false doctrine.
I also agree that the decision, to move to a fully celibate priesthood, based on a false idea of sexuality (all sex is lust, we must avoid all lust) in the 900's to 1,000 AD, was wrong and actually heretical. As you point out, while some men are gifted to be celibate (Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy) most are not.
Also came from Aaron Renn. Good discussion here.
I'll say on Jill Dillard (nee Duggar) and the documentary: highly recommend reading her book and skipping the documentary. The book is a quick read, and the interview with her and her husband are the only parts of the documentary worth watching. Too much of the documentary consists of bloviating from literal Reddit atheists, and that time would be better spent reading the book and learning more context around her and her husband's comments.
>Gothard himself also demonstrated the general gullibility of evangelicals. Gothard is and was single and has never married or had children, yet people accepted his parenting advice largely without questioning his lack of practical experience.
I feel for the incels, but in my experience it's an unfortunate yet evergreen heuristic that one should be very, very slow to trust never-married men in positions of responsibility or leadership. Surely this has to go at least quadruple when he's purporting to be a guru for parenting advice, openly surrounds himself with beautiful girls and young women, and fails to abide by the Billy Graham Rule!
>Congregational government is often a dictatorship in practice and Gothard types who hear voices and claim God told them something get shut down quickly by grumpy, pipe-smoking Reformed elders, and if they don’t, the broader, regional body of governing elders will.
I'll admit that I have a bias towards congregational polity, out of concern that more complex arrangements are perpetually vulnerable to Conquest's Second Law, which is to say institutional capture by hostile forces. But you raise a valid point that while congregational polity may work reasonably well for the well-educated upper-middle class, others may benefit from more robust checks and balances.
I should read her book, though I think I got the gist from listening to her interviews on Stuckey's podcast. There's no panacea with churches, I agree, and it's usually better to look at actual choices locally, pros and cons, than be rigid in one's preferences.
Greatly enjoyed this article. Tom, have you ever considered taking a leave of absence from your business in order to be involved vocationally in national politics? Not as a candidate, but as an advisor. Your breadth of knowledge could help mitigate some of the more stupid inclinations of politicians who actually have a chance at restoring our nation to sanity and civility.
Thanks for your kind comment. I enjoy my life and politics interests me much less than it used to. I think the future of the USA is more or less something like Brazil and it's too late to change that, and I expect our politics to follow. Writing and thinking remains a fun hobby, and unfortunately politics is mostly about money, and the table stakes nationally are billions to make a difference. At the margins, I am involved to a very limited degree behind the scenes at the state level.
"but since the Bible is an unchanging document"
That's historically "wrong", for lack of a better word (research New Testament variants for the details).
But even granting that statement, does it matter that the base text didn't change when each generation of religious leaders (including Catholics) re-interprets the Bible? Exodus 22:18 says we need to kill witches; the church did so for centuries, now we don't so much. The base text didn't change, but to say the Bible is "unchanging" without acknowledging the huge variance in interpretation every so often is disingenuous.
I halfway agree with you, as Bible interpretation is unfalsifiable at the margins. That said, there's enough that's clear to give one a lifetime of sanctification.
The Bible is unfalsifiable at the center.
Was Jesus divine, was the question of Arianism correctly decided? We know who won, but to say the winners "proved" their case isn't true. There are easily a dozen Biblical verses that flat-out state Jesus wasn't divine, when read literally. Modern Christianity interprets their clear meaning away, but it's confirmation bias: since the verse cannot mean what it plainly says, we're forced to interpret our way around that reading.
In more modern debates, what about New Covenant Theology? The New Testament is absolutely clear that each of the NCT variants is true or false, depending on the verses chosen. Are same-sex relations an abomination? Does a fetus have a soul? (If you can prove your answer, the Southern Baptists arguing about those issues would like a word.) Whatever; you have to define "the margins" pretty carefully to argue NCT isn't central to modern Christianity.
Then just look at passages where all variants agree, you still get the main points across.
A range of interpretations is not the same as infinite decision space. The fact of base text existing means that things can cycle back around to old interpretations after long periods of time.
I agree with you most variants are consistent. While there are theologically interesting passages that were arguably later additions to the text ("Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."), the variants largely agree.
I disagree with your statement that "you still get the main points across". A book that has spawned tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and is flexible enough to act as a base text for the Eastern Orthodox Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses -- at the same time -- cannot be said to get its main points "across".
Well Orthodox/Catholic hold tradition as equally binding, Mormons have a separate book, and Mormon/Jehovah's Witnesses believe all early texts were corrupted.
Agreed; but why do sacred traditions, additional texts, or belief the text has been corrupted, imply the text is lucid and comprehensible?
Came from Auron Renn link. This is an excellent piece.
Thoughtful article that explains the Duggar phenomenon really well.
Just a comment on priestly celibacy: might I suggest your take on it is a bit worldly, and underestimates God's ability to work in human lives. A man genuinely called to the priesthood who does his part in continually responding to that call is given the grace he needs to carry out his vocation joyfully and fruitfully. It's not about naturally having the spiritual gift of celibacy being an indication of one's call to the priesthood.
I've always taught my Protestant children to never underestimate Catholicism and its intellectual tradition. But I do disagree on this issue. It's not that I don't think it's possible for someone to receive the grace necessary despite a bad policy, but rather that such a policy will statistically attract hypocrites who will hide their lack of celibacy or abnormal sexuality in numbers that will overwhelm the faithful, and those hypocrites will find each other and take over the church hierarchy at the highest levels. Some of the most conservative Catholic groups already acknowledge this to be the case with the post-Vatican-II popes. As a parent, I would be uncomfortable in my gut with my child being around unmarried men in positions of church authority; it strikes me as a dangerous situation statistically. And if it's required by neither Scripture nor tradition, why have such a stumbling block?
"As a parent, I would be uncomfortable in my gut with my child being around unmarried men in positions of church authority; it strikes me as a dangerous situation statistically."
There's reasonable statistical evidence that sex offenders are as likely to be married or married and divorced as other American men. (See "The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study" for one backing document. And to forestall the deluge of other documents, I will cheerfully agree there are other studies that refute that study; it's a messy area and well, "people lie".)
As a parent, I would be uncomfortable in my gut with my child being alone with any male authority figure.
The issues you point to are valid, especially with regard to larger than warranted numbers of homosexual clergy who appear to have developed blackmail networks and whatnot within the hierarchy.
Certainly the institution of celibate policy had practicalities associated with control of church property back in the day. But I think there was something more to it that still pertains - and that is that a celibate is a unique sign and witness to Gods grace and Christ’s presence among us. They are men set apart for something *really* special. Nothing practical about it. That’s the point, and it’s important. No married family man can give himself wholly to the service of Gods people like a celibate can. Imaging Christ in that particular and vital way.
As a parent I understand and share your concern about the safety of children. I just don’t believe that a married clergy is the answer. The naïveté and blind trust that Catholic parents used to confer on any priest is long gone, parishes have instituted pretty rigorous policies and practices to protect children - and protect priests themselves. I think it’s almost unthinkable at this point that priests - or any unrelated adult - are left alone with children.
My brother was groomed and probably molested by his 5th grade public school teacher, a married father of several children. Predators can hide in plain sight.
Also, I do think better screening for seminaries and better formation programs is necessary and hopefully starting to happen.
There are lots of issues with the hierarchy, but I don’t see a mere policy change to married priests as some sort of magic bullet. Sure, it might solve some problems (tho I’m highly skeptical of the pedophile one) but surely will create at least as many more.
So were priests before 1100 not genuinely called to priesthood?
lol - what it looks like when reason is used to shut the trap door on yourself from the inside
So, as a Catholic convert myself I want to push you a little on this. Anon's comment is facially absurd, but why is it absurd? Because obviously the vocation to the priesthood is not identical to or coterminous with the vocation to celibacy (this can be demonstrated from both ends. Women religious are called to celibacy but not to the priesthood. And every time an Eastern Rite bishop ordains a married man he presumably believes, like a Latin bishop before mandatory celibacy would have believed, that this man is called to the priesthood without being called to celibacy).
But in refuting Anon have we proved too much? Don't things get tricky? Haven't we now forced ourselves to acknowledge that it's possible for a man of good will to be genuinely called to the priesthood without being genuinely called to celibacy (that is, called to the celibacy as a positive good and for it's own sake not as a means to something else)? And indeed, as Larry Chapp pointed out a few years ago, if a priest who longs for family life is white-knucking his way through celibacy because he loves Christ and the priesthood more than anything, that seems like pretty good evidence that the man is both called to the priesthood and genuinely not called to celibacy. So why should the church have forced that choice on him, when there's obviously nothing intrinsic to the priesthood that requires it?
just armchair winging it with a couple points:
- I don’t think celibacy is a vocation. The Catholic priesthood is *a* vocation that normally (but not always - eg an Anglican convert who was married and ordained, an eastern rite priest per your example) entails celibacy.
Because the Church says so.
That might be an unsatisfying answer, but honestly arguing about church policy- esp at that level- isn’t a productive or fruitful use of spiritual energy or time. It’s not a democracy, so my or your opinion doesn’t matter at all.
Sure, there are many “issues” one can point to as Tom Owens has, but if that is a stumbling block to one’s faith, I don’t think logically reasoning it out is going to be helpful.
That said, as i mentioned in another comment, I do see a celibate priesthood as a particular and vital sign of Gods grace and Christ’s presence in the church. A celibate priest images Christ in a particular, ritual way, and can wholly give himself as a “bride” to the bridegroom and serve Gods people in a way a married father cannot.
Great read.
I came here from Aaron Renn's link. A very good commentary that I agree with. I think your point about there being differing degrees of sin is true, biblically supported and greatly needed. I was trained at God's Bible College, (Wesleyan Arminian / Holiness) which would be considered fundamentalist and or legalistic. Yet, for myself, coming from a family with sexual abuse and porn, the enforced modesty was a blessing. I was healed by it. Yes, there is a great difference between lust (coveting) and actual adultery. Not the least in that the number of rippling ramifications are multiplied in actual physical adultery. The number of interwoven sins is enormous.
I agree that overall a presbyterian form of government is the most healthy. I was a missionary in Asia for 20 years and saw many churches in trouble. Those with some type of outside authority had the chance to resolve the problem but the independent congregations were often consumed by the problem. But, yes there is the danger that the upper leadership will be captured by false doctrine.
I also agree that the decision, to move to a fully celibate priesthood, based on a false idea of sexuality (all sex is lust, we must avoid all lust) in the 900's to 1,000 AD, was wrong and actually heretical. As you point out, while some men are gifted to be celibate (Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy) most are not.
Great piece. Have you considered reading out your posts in podcast audio style?
Would you open to podcast invites from others?