Josiah Concept Ministries

It seems to me that Roman Catholic apologists build around a certain motif that I like to call personality cult apologetics.  The most obvious example is this article from Jimmy Akin, which at the time of writing has 796 comments.  Most of these comments are just people writing one or two lines of agreement with Akin’s post and a few “atta-boy” comments from the usual cast of JA.O regulars.  For Jimmy’s sake, I hope that TypePad manages comments better than WordPress, because I couldn’t even begin to imagine trying to sort through 796 new comments with the way WordPress handles them.

All of the comments were centered around James White and the graphics he posted with a humorous intent.  The comments served to prove Dr. White’s point that charity is severely lacking from that bank of the Tiber, however we on this side are expected to maintain this charity at all costs.

This issue is near and dear to my own heart right now because I’m the target of Dave Armstrong’s personality cult for my comment that Dave is misrepresenting what the “Vicar of Christ” title implies for the Pope.  My favorite, from Jordan Potter:

On which bank of the Tiber will I remain? The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty . . .

Wonderful news! See you at the next Easter Vigil!

I read that twice yesterday and I didn’t get it.  I just got it when I re-read it today.  That’s actually funny.  I am so slow on the uptake sometimes.

Now here is where I have to give Dave some credit.  I got targeted by a hit-and-run guy not so very long ago who didn’t bother to read everything I wrote on a particular topic and started to go on and on to convince me of a point that I not only accepted, but articulated in a previous post.  Dave has read this post, and his commenters are (rightfully) all over it:

And my record remains unbroken. I have never– and I don’t mean almost never or 99.999% never and one or two exceptions–heard a former Catholic correctly articulate Catholic teaching. (Scott W.)

Then:

Oh, he’s a former Catholic turned anti-Catholic fundamentalist? No wonder he doesn’t accurately represent the content of the Catholic faith. (Jordan Potter again)

But my personal favorite in this set:

I forgot that I used to worship Diana and Isis. Whew! What a long strange trip it’s been! Pretty soon we’ll have all of the rest of the trillions of female-deity-worhippers in our ranks and then, watch out! (Mike Burgess)

Now I have a sense of humor.  And I can also admit when I’m wrong, and most of all, I can admit why I was wrong.  The statement to which they refer is not something I’ve ever (or would ever) teach if I were lucky enough to become an apologetics instructor.  I don’t even believe that I made such a glaring error, but there it is in print, so I said it.  I will own up to it, and I admit that I was wrong in making that statement.

I am ashamed of the reason why I made the statement: It was targeted at a specific person, whom I now regard as a false teacher, to impress upon her that I was on the “right side.”  Her opinion of the right side and my opinion of the right side, I now realize, are very different.  Incompatible, actually.

The person to whom I am referring will undoubtedly recognize herself if she still reads my blog, however I am confident that she has already guessed what I’m revealing.  I am shying away from using names or providing links because a very dear friend of mine almost wholly subscribes to this woman’s teaching.  I have no desire to alienate him again, which is why I have never said anything about this.

I, still relatively new to apologetics, wrote that post specifically because this false teacher accused me of being one primarily in light of this post where I express interest in reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth.  As this false teacher is very anti-Catholic, that post caused her great concern and so I wrote the very lame-brained post to calm her mind.

I stand behind the fact that there are saved people within the Catholic Church because of their faith in the sacrifice of the cross, not because of what the Church teaches.  In other words, they are saved in spite of what the Church teaches, not because of what the Church teaches.  The statement about Mary equating to goddess worship is not true, it never was, and I should never have expressed the sentiment.  It isn’t what I believe, and I have done the gospel a great disservice by voicing it.  And worse, I did it to advance a relationship with a false teacher.

I do not still communicate with her.  I spoke with her about my belief that salvation can occur within the Catholic Church, that regardless of whatever apostasy may be in it that God can and still does use it as a vehicle for salvation of His elect.  I pointed to my own grandparents as an example.  She expressed discontent with the notion that anyone could be saved within the Church, and that was the last time we spoke.

I’m fine with that.

But now that I’ve admitted to my mistake, I would like to return briefly to the idea of personality cult apologetics.  I seem to see much of it in the Roman Catholic apologetics circles.  It’s obvious with Jimmy Akin.  Less so, but still present, at Dave Armstrong’s blog.  I don’t think that Robert Sungenis has it anymore after putting out the book that argues that earth is the center of the solar system.  Gerry Matatics had to postpone his 300 city tour, so I don’t think that he has a personality cult.  I’m not so sure about Scott Hahn.

This personality cult apologetics takes the shape of the apologist making his claims on his blog, and then his commenters descend on the post and leave 40, 50, or 60 comments, most of which are just “atta-boy” comments or e-nods ™ of agreement.  This is unfortunately similar to what I see done on atheist discussion boards, such as the Rational Response Squad.  The mentality is certainly the same: the Rational Response Squad has won every debate they’ve ever been in.  Just ask them, and they’ll tell you it is so.  It’s the same thing with this crowd, except I haven’t seen anyone Catholics say “Ha, ha, you got pwned!” yet.

Maybe they’re waiting for the Pope to infallibly define a pronunciation for “pwned.”

Anyway, I digress.  I suppose that it is good that I don’t have a personality cult following me, or else I would have to start a campaign for better comment-handling in WordPress.  Because I assure you, if I ever wrote something that garnered 796 comments, I wouldn’t even be able to read half of them.

I suppose the bigger picture is, Do I want a personality cult?  Of course, I’ve always wanted to lead a cult.  It would be fun to be the unquestionable leader of a group of people.  I’d try to outdo King Solomon on wives and concubines.  Forget a tithe: I’d have people pay all of their life savings.

But now, I’m more than happy to let God be the center.  I’m periphery.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Penitent Atheist says:

As it turned out, the issue of homosexuality, among others, helped me see that the Bible, and Christianity, were false. It is very simple, really. If homosexuality is not a choice, then Christianity is wrong. And it is patently clear that homosexuality is not a choice; it is no more a choice than is heterosexuality. (source)

And then:

Someone will counter my arguments here by asking if we should also be tolerant of pedophiles. After all, one might argue, they don’t choose their sexual preference either. But there is a very significant difference between homosexual sex between two consenting adults and sex between an adult and a child. The child does not, cannot, consent, and is severely harmed psychologically by the experience. The vast disparity of power between an adult and a child, both physical and psychological, makes it sexual activity harmful.

Actually, I wouldn’t counter the argument by arguing for pedophilia. But I’m glad that our penitent friend recognizes that lack of choice in the manner or method of sexual attraction does not equate to said manner or method being correct behavior. That will form the foundation of my counter-argument.

I will assume that a lack of a conscious choice in the matter will mean a genetic predisposition toward the behavior, in this case, homosexuality. The penitent atheist, in his reverse example, doesn’t consider environmental factors so I believe that I’m safe in assuming that he is primarily arguing on genetics. So, let’s ask ourselves: Does a genetic predisposition to something automatically mean that this is a desirable state of being? Consider that alcoholism (or any addictive behavior, for that matter), heart disease, high blood pressure, emphysema, rage, Down’s syndrome, and cancer are all influenced by genetics. That is why this line of reasoning is fallacious. There are many negative traits that are also genetic.

The entire “homosexuality isn’t a choice” argument automatically assumes that because something is hard wired into our being that it is a good thing. That is clearly and demonstrably false. I struggle with an addiction. I have anger management issues. I’ve survived cancer. These things are likely hard wired into my DNA, but I don’t believe that any of those things affect me positively, and I certainly won’t submit to addiction or just tell my wife that she’ll have to deal with my rage because that stuff is genetic and I don’t have a choice in the matter.

The truth is that I do have a choice in the matter. I can recognize those attributes, such as addiction and rage, for the corrupting influences that they are. Homosexuality, whether it is hard wired or a personal preference, is no different. The homosexual must realize, first, that this behavior is a corrupting influence. Then, he or she must act on this realization and surrender to the authority of God through Christ Jesus. That is only the first step. I do now and always will struggle with my addiction. So will these saints. But they will be saved by the same grace that saved me, and in time, they will come to terms with that sin as I have. They will struggle with it, but they will be equipped to face it head-on.

But don’t take my word for it. Read the testimonies of people who have been positively impacted by taking those steps with homosexuality, and now embrace freedom in Jesus Christ.

There isn’t a cure for homosexuality. No one is trying to claim that. But there is hope for those that struggle with it. The feelings won’t go away, but over time these feelings can be dealt with in a positive, God-glorifying way.