I have, in times past, been called a provocateur. It isn’t always intentional. However, in fairness, I found that provoking sometimes leads to good conversation and debate which sharpens all parties involved.
Of course, as a clergyman, I need to be careful with how I wield this. My call is to pastor, not provoke. That said, I don’t wish to be elusive regarding my beliefs. And so, it is with that in mind that I wish to share these seven things—things which often lead to questions, comments, and heated discussions. Perhaps this post will bring more of the same.
As a brief aside, for the sake of those reading, I wanted to note that this list is in no particular order. Also, if you are offended by this list… well, the disclaimer is in the title. I warned you.
Now for the seven things:
1. Dispensationalism is heresy.
Talking about this one can get me into trouble—especially since most of the people and circles I grew up in were dispensational, or at least friendly toward the dispensational view. However, as I have become more grounded in the Catholic faith, it has become obvious to me that dispensationalism is not simply a minor eschatological nuance; it is a fundamentally different theology from orthodox Christian theology. I won’t get into its differences here, but needless to say, I believe it to be a departure from the faith in significant ways.
Now, to be clear, many of those who have fallen for this heresy are not formal heretics. They have not teased out the implications of this system, nor have they been properly exposed to the Catholic faith. As such, while remaining material heretics, I still view many of them as Christians.
2. The Episcopate is necessary to have a church.
Many of my more Reformed Anglican brethren dislike that I take this view of the episcopate. Many want to insist that bishops are for the benefit of church order but not essential to its essence. However, despite my agreement with them that bishops are not a separate order from the priesthood, but rather a rank within it, I am firmly convinced from history and Scripture that bishops are the source of apostolic authority—and that without them, one’s ecclesial gathering ceases to be a church in the true sense of that word.
This is not to say that these non-episcopal gatherings lack grace. I cannot speak to the mysterious workings of God, and I believe that all those who call upon His name can—as it depends on them—enter into a state of grace by His mercy. However, as history attests, those who gather without a bishop not only lack proper order but also lack the very center of what it means to be part of the visible Church.
3. Icon veneration is orthodox.
No, icon veneration is not idol worship. It is the honoring of matter (and its redemption) through the person of Jesus Christ, the invisible God made visible. When we venerate Christ and His saints, we acknowledge the Incarnation of Christ and His transformative power. That is all there is to it. Anyone who denies this pushes against the consensus of the Church as defined by the second council of Nicaea—and therefore against the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
4. Baptists are barely Christian.
This one really gets people upset. I get it—no one likes when their sacred cows are melted down. However, the more I have studied Baptist theology and interacted with Baptists generally, the more I realize that their entire schtick is to believe the opposite of what historic Christianity confesses. Many deny the Creeds and Councils and hold to heretical theology in a formal sense. Many discard the sacraments entirely, calling them mere “rites.” And worst of all, all Baptists—without exception—withhold the precious and life-giving regeneration of baptism from their children, turning them into law-keepers before introducing them to grace. This is a horrific error.
The only reason I still consider Baptists to be Christians is (ironically) because of their baptism. Their theological confession of faith is compromised, but the power of God at work in their baptisms is salvific, objectively uniting them to Christ and beginning the process of a renewed life within them. Who am I to deny the work of God and the hand of fellowship, so far as it depends on me?
5. I am a “hopeful universalist.”
To start: I do not believe that universalism can be taught publicly in the Church or dogmatically held by those within it. It is not the general consent of the Fathers, it is not clear in the Scriptures, and it is not addressed in the Creeds.
That being said, the arguments surrounding universalism are compelling to me, and I was surprised to find that it has more support in the history of the Church than many would expect. In other words, the Church’s doctrine of hell is not as clearly defined as many Christians seem to believe.
Though I am not confident of much on this subject, I can say with certainty that when we die, those in Christ will enter into a process of cleansing unto glorification, and those who die outside of Christ will experience the pangs of hell. What I cannot say with certainty is whether hell is eternal conditioned on those there who continue to reject God, or eternal in an unconditional sense on the part of God. This is a mystery I will never fully grasp.
And so, I faithfully preach and warn against the fires of hell, urging the faithful to persevere and the lost to enter into the faith, lest they fall into eternal separation from God. However, while I do this, I hold hope that, in the end, no soul will fail to repent when faced with the eternality of God’s love. Can human rebellion endure as long as the love of God? Hopefully not.
6. Multiculturalism is evil.
When God created the world, each day, things were separated and put in their proper place—day from night, sky from sea, bird from fish, man from woman, etc. The world would not have proper order if God had not done the great work of separation. In the same way, the beauty of human culture is found in the fact that it is different. If it is all poured together in one big melting pot, rather than a beautiful mix of culture, you end up with no culture at all. Multiculturalism is the destruction of culture rather than its preserver.
It should not be considered racist to suggest that it is better for cultures to remain separated for the sake of their integrity. Further, I suggest that all nations should require their citizens to maintain, treasure, and pass on their particular culture. This would require all foreigners to assimilate if they plan to live in a particular place, and would leave no room for other cultures to try and “mix” their ideas and influences with that which is foundational to the country in which they live.
I am convinced that the identity crisis that the West is experiencing at the moment is largely due to the rise of multiculturalism. Nobody knows who or what they are, because all identifying markers of their culture and heritage have been lost and distorted.
7. Remarriage is adultery.
I wish this wasn’t controversial. It was the belief of all Christians until very recently and has explicit biblical support. God hates divorce, and if it does take place, remarriage is strictly forbidden. Don’t shoot the messenger.
BONUS: Women’s Ordination is a primary issue.
Women’s ordination is often said to be a secondary issue. Even within my own communion, bishops have essentially agreed to co-exist in a communion where they agree to disagree on this issue. However, if apostolic succession is necessary for sacramental assurance (which it is), and if the Church and Scripture has long affirmed that only men can be ordained priests (which it has), and if the Eucharist is generally necessary to salvation (which it is), then it follows that a woman priestess cannot consecrate the Eucharist, putting the salvation of souls in peril.
This is primary.
These are a few of my most controversial views. Many of them shouldn’t be, but are. Some of them, I grant, are genuinely controversial. I make no apology for that. I simply ask for thoughtful dialogue. Here I stand.
Be blessed.
Correct
🌳 One day at a time Amigo....
.....and Christ is RISEN! ✨☦️⛪