Optional Orthodoxy? Time to Leave.
Churches have two choices: faithfulness or death.
One of the problems with Western society and most of the Western church falling apart is that one hardly knows on which enormity to write. There are so many to choose from! So many that cry out to high Heaven and to my pen for a good smiting. Oh, if only I were a fast and prolific writer! But, although an above average writer on a good day, I’ve never been either fast or prolific. So I have to make difficult choices about my subjects.
For example, as I prepared to write this I saw that fake fraudulently elected Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D-of course) vetoed a bill to help protect homeowners from squatters. I was provoked, to put it mildly. And people need to know the consequences of “electing” Democrats and how they put invaders and criminals above law-abiding citizens. So I thought about ranting, I mean, writing about that.
Instead I will exercise some discipline and stick to the topic of church leavers for now.
Unlike the exvangelical woke whiners who “leave loud,”* there are times when it is right and even necessary to leave a church. When orthodoxy and orthopraxy among the leaders of a church becomes optional is such a time. I left the mainline Presbyterian Church in the late 80’s for that reason.
Sadly, orthodoxy is optional for the leaders of most of the institutional church. So I think faithful Christians need to be willing to join small faithful churches.
But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself again. I should first answer the question of why would I make such a divisive assertion. Yes, I admit I am being divisive. For “there must be divisions” when church leaders are unfaithful. (1 Corinthians 11:19) But aren’t I advocating something similar to the woke loud leavers? Am I simply being a mirror image of them?
No. I am recognizing that Richard John Neuhaus and Neuhaus’ Law is right and proven by time and events:
Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.
Now, of course, no church is perfect. There will always be a strange cleric or two. We certainly know that in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). It is yet to be seen whether ACNA and its unusual federal structure will succeed. But it is a good sign that in recent years two of our most woke clerics in the most woke diocese left with their parishes as I wrote last year. They found out the hard way that in ACNA orthodoxy is not optional but expected. For that and other reasons, I can say with confidence that ACNA is in a better place than it was in 2020.
But what if the problem is not marginal clerics in a marginal diocese but a prominent bishop, even a number of prominent bishops? One such case is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Trier Stephan Ackermann and his Queer Mass.
And his grave transgression is no surprise sprung on the church. He has been advocating for queering the church for years. Nor is he in isolation. Even the Vatican now approves of same-sex blessings. There hasn’t yet been a queer mass at the Vatican that I know of, but it’s coming.
Now a healthy church in which orthodoxy is not optional but required — and not just with a wink and a nudge — would excommunicate Stephan Ackermann. That is the bigger issue than church leaders going bad. Church leaders are men; some of them will go bad. The issue is what a church does then. Does a church discipline firmly or do nothing? If it does nothing — and you pretty much know the Vatican will do nothing in this case — then orthodoxy is optional, and that church is well along on the road to apostasy, even mandatory apostasy.
So, no, not even the Roman Catholic Church is exempt from Neuhaus’ Law.
I can hear my Roman friends insisting “the church shall prevail” and it will, but not all or most of the institutional church. And Scripture clearly teaches there will be a Great Apostasy (which I think we probably are in). And Jesus did ask that pointed question, “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)
So, although I am no prophet or the son of a prophet, I don’t think Rome or any church gets an exemption from Neuhaus’ Law. Churches, all churches, have two choices: faithfulness or death.
Which begs the question of what one should do if one sees leaders in his church openly apostasize without any significant consequence of church discipline.
I have the highest respect for any number of people who remain faithful in churches that are becoming unfaithful. But I think remaining in unfaithful orthodoxy-optional churches is usually unwise for several reasons.
One’s church should assist one in being faithful, not make it more difficult. But the Church of Rome is already making faithfulness more difficult for traditional Catholics, especially Latin Mass Catholics. It’s heartbreaking to see. Even if one is allowed to remain faithful, it can wear on the Christian to see one’s church willfully descend further and further into evil. Personally, I could never remain in such a church. It would eat me alive; it would literally be unhealthy, would affect my spiritual and probably mental and physical health as well. Maybe you are made of tougher stuff. I freely admit I am not.
Then there is the issue of being obedient to 2 John 10-11. We Christians are not to take part in the “wicked works” of the apostates. How does one do that while remaining in an apostasizing church? I guess it can be done depending on one’s diligence and the structure of one’s church. But surely is it better to join a church one can fully participate in and assist.
Since I am most directly addressing the situation of the Church of Rome, I will say my heart goes out to my faithful Roman Catholic friends. I’m not sure what I would do if I were in their situation and committed to RC ecclesiology. Probably I would pray hard about the next conclave and see if God does a miracle and give an orthodox reformer as Pope — and that would take a miracle given how Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals. More likely, I would seek out and maybe form a SSPX or Sede Vacante chapel. But, with sadness, I would not harbor much hope that the Roman Catholic Church as a whole recovers and becomes faithful. Yes, the Church of Rome has survived any number of bad popes, but I am unaware of any church that has survived prevalent apostasy since the Arian controversies.
For most Christians, leaving an apostasizing church or denomination is a necessity for the faithfulness and spiritual health of oneself and one’s family (Especially if you are raising children or youth — don’t you dare subject them to apostate churches!). If it becomes clear that orthodoxy is optional among the leaders of your church, that is the time you should prepare to leave. That is the time to find or plant a faithful church in which orthodoxy in leaders is required, not optional.
——
*Speaking of those whiney exvangelicals, as I was preparing this post, Anne Kennedy’s review of Sarah McCammon's The Exvangelicals came out.
Join me in reading and listening . . . to Anne’s review, not the book. I would not wish that book on anybody except
. Her sacrificial ministry is reading awful stuff so we don’t have to.
Thanks for the shoutout! And very good point. What a wretched time to be alive