Trueman and Rome: Co-belligerency Against the LGBTQ+ Fails to Uphold the Gospel
Image
By Jonathan Peters
The Napa Institute (NI) exists to “empower … Catholic leaders to renew the Church and transform the culture.” As their website states: “We believe that now is the time to advance the re-evangelization of the United States. Yet many yearn for the foundation they need to advance Christ’s mission. At the same time, leaders and benefactors yearn to support Catholic causes. The Napa Institute acts as a conduit so all can courageously and eloquently defend our faith in the public square.” NI seeks to accomplish this goal by providing conferences, pilgrimages, and events worldwide.
For their 2021 conference, NI invited Carl Trueman, a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College and an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In his lecture at the institute, Trueman declared that “Christianity is a dogmatic religion. On that much the greatest theologians across the Christian spectrum agree, from [the Protestant] Martin Luther to [the Catholic] John Henry Newman” (emphasis added).
After the lecture, the senior editor of the National Catholic Register (NCR) interviewed Trueman and asked how he, a Presbyterian minister, became a keynote speaker at NI. Trueman answered (emphasis added):
Over the last couple of years, I’ve developed good friendships with Catholics.
There are significant differences between us over things that we believe. But as we move into this new phase of cultural engagement, or cultural war, I see significant common ground between myself and my Catholic friends both on the affirmation of the supernatural against those who deny it and on the need to stand in opposition to the dominant mores of the cultural elites—two issues that divide me from my liberal Protestant peers.
Recently, another Catholic organization, the Leonine Forum (LF), asked Trueman to speak at one of their sessions in Washington D.C. At the conclusion of his lecture, Trueman was asked: “Why are you not a Catholic?” After all, the inquirer noted Trueman “expressed love [in his presentation] for the early Church Fathers, admiration for Thomas Aquinas, and an approach to ethics that resonated with [the late Pope] John Paul II’s theology of the body.”
On December 12, Trueman explained his response in a First Things article (emphasis added throughout):
It’s hard to answer such a question in brief compass at the end of a lecture. Many issues are important in my commitment to Reformed Protestantism: authority, salvation, the nature of the ministry, and the significance of sacraments are just a few of the more obvious. And while I am open to the criticism that Protestantism hasn’t given Mary her due, I believe the Catholic Church has given her a significance that is well beyond anything the Bible would countenance. But above all, at the current moment, Catholicism doesn’t appeal to me because of the man at the top: Pope Francis. In my answer, I did try to be respectful of my audience, but I could not help but observe that the present pope seems to be nothing more than a liberal Protestant in a white papal robe. And as a Protestant, I am acutely aware of the damage such people do.
Furthermore, he said:
I have numerous friends who have swum the Tiber over the last decades, mainly for intellectual or aesthetic reasons. Ironically, the intellectual heft of historic Catholicism and its enviable aesthetic achievements seem to be the very things that the pope regards with indifference. And both of these seem to connect to that telltale sign that always presages trouble in Christian circles: a loss of the transcendent in favor of the immanent.
Trueman concluded:
Confessional, orthodox Protestants should take no satisfaction in Rome’s increasing resemblance to the old enemy of liberal Protestantism. Rome still has the money and institutional weight to make a difference in these great struggles over what it means to be human. If Rome equivocates and falls on these issues, the world will become colder and harsher for all of us. To quote Elrond, our list of allies grows thin. And Pope Francis is not reversing that process.
Orthodox Protestants should be greatly disturbed by Trueman’s actions listed above. They certainly should abhor theological liberalism and moral perversion, but this should not cause them to neglect their duty to stand against other false religions, with or without Pope Francis at the helm (Rom. 16:17-18, Gal. 1:6-9, 2 Tim. 3:1-9, 1 John 4:1-3, Jude 3-4). Traditionally, Catholicism has had a better view than liberalism on matters like the Trinity, the person of Christ, and supernaturalism, but as Kevin Bauder has noted, Rome’s “grasp of both the nature of spiritual authority and the application of salvation are [still] fatally flawed.”1 Unfortunately, Trueman has downplayed these facts and promoted an unbiblical ecumenicity with culturally conservative Catholics to fight against the LGBTQ+ community.
His friends’ conversions to Rome and the NCR and LF inquiries should have been wake-up calls to Trueman. His presence on Romanist platforms, his assistance in Catholic education, his compliments of Rome,2 and his failure to clearly preach against Rome’s soul-damning theology, have compromised the gospel and caused confusion. He has condemned one enemy of Christ (a progressive pope) while granting Christian fellowship to others (traditional Catholics). He has therefore “unequally yoked [himself] together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14) and become a “partaker of [their] evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). Protestants must be acutely aware of the damage such people do.
Notes
1 Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, eds. Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 33. Mark Sidwell has also argued that orthodox Protestants should “not associate with a movement on the basis that it is not as far from the truth as some other movement. Rather we [should] associate with those persons and movements that actively hold to the truth.” The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1998), 150.
2 See also Trueman’s article, “What Protestants Can Learn from Catholics” (emphasis added):
I confess to a deep envy of Catholic intellectual life among many of its brightest young people, and the vibrancy of this is evident in several of the interviews. For example, at the University of Pennsylvania, Dan Cheely runs the remarkable Collegium Institute, offering a rich program of thoughtful lectures and seminars to students. The D.C.-based Leonine Forum provides thoughtful mentoring for those whose talents may well take them to places of cultural influence. And behind many of these programs lies an impressive and generous network of Catholic philanthropists.
Jonathan Peters serves as an administrative assistant at Reformation Bible Church and Harford Christian School (Darlington, MD).
- 363 views
I don’t know what Trueman’s trajectory is. I haven’t been following him to see where he is on post-liberal integralism. If he’s on that train, he is likely to be linking arms with socially conservative Roman Catholics more in the future.
It’s also not clear to me that he is, in general, too cozy with Rome. I don’t have enough information. The part this article looks at, and its immediate context, look to me like a case of “socially conservative Protestant overemphasizes points of agreement with socially conservative Roman Catholics to help further social conservatism.”
I do think the First Things article was a great opportunity to emphasize the gospel, justification by faith, and how that conviction constricts cooperation with RC in social efforts. But he didn’t take that opportunity.
He seems to say social conservatism is more important than sola fide. I doubt he really meant to convey that… but it has that ring to it. That’s unfortunate.
That said, evangelicals with social agendas have a pretty long history now of looking at churches (and even cults, e.g. Mormonism) as social institutions and finding ways to work together with them in various ways on social agenda.
That’s always been a thorny path. The true, gospel-embracing church is not mainly a social institution, though it has a built in social dimension. But, historically, “christendom” was a socio-religious entity. Separation of church and state wasn’t a thing until a while after the Reformation. How/where exactly do social conservatives draw the lines (between “church as faith institution” and “church as social force”) in the 21sth century?
I don’t have a good answer for that, but it should be obvious that maintaining gospel clarity ought to be a non-negotiable, right?
But Trueman is right that the RCC has often been a force for good in society—at the worldview level, which is where I think Trueman is mainly interested.
But it should be possible to appreciate the worldview points of agreement and the positive social goods and still keep the gospel distinctives prominent.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I agree with Jonathan Peters. Roman Catholicism has many problematic teachings, but their erroneous view of the gospel places them outside the realm of Christianity. Put simply, RC is a false religion. Any cooperative effort that suggests RC is a legitimate Christian institution is a danger to the unconverted and an abomination to God. Those who offer legitimacy to RC are partakers of her evil deeds.
G. N. Barkman
What I am finding very interesting is this growing trends, especially from the Reformed of leaving their current place of worship and moving to the Roman Catholic church.
A lot of departures for Eastern Orthodox, too.
I think, in part, it’s an overcorrection from evangelicalism’s (and most Baptist’s) doing church as though Christianity was born yesterday. We don’t identify with the ancient—our own history—and some crave that sense of rootedness in something that is enduring, stable, and not trying so hard to be “relevant.”
To put it another way, a lot of our churches have, in practice, an overly immanentized view of God, so those who crave transcendence are jumping ship.
(I also crave transcendence—increasingly as I age—but you don’t really have to go that route to get it.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
Yes, I see a lot of departures for Eastern Orthodox as well. If there are concerns with the papacy, they will transition to Eastern Orthodox instead of RC. A lot of it has to do with poor church history, I think. Many educated evangelicals know the church fathers and know the Protestant reformation, but lack much understanding in between. Where I see a lot stumbling is that they study the church fathers, see that they align to many areas of RC, struggle with the fact that God would let his church wander for 1,500 years until the Reformation. They also struggle with the fact that so many churches are not aligned with each other and how could there be so much confusion. It is shocking how many well educated evangelicals are abandoning Protestantism for the RC. I think there will be a swing back after they have been in it for a while. That is my take.
Seems a likely scenario.
As far as remedies, I really do think that Baptist and baptistic churches would do well to build more awareness of church history in congregations. We should also put more emphasis on kinship with our theological predecessors, including RC.
I know that seems counterintuitive/counterproductive, but consider a few things:
- The history is what it is, and there is no point in hiding it
- People feel like they’ve been deceived if we don’t own up to the awkward/hard to explain realities of church history and our own distinctives
- Inoculation: If you grow up understanding EO and RC (especially pre-Vatican II RC and maybe Pre-Innocent III, who was big on exclusive claim to ‘vicar of Christ) you are less likely to have some kind of “Oh, this is the real Christianity I’ve been missing out on all these years!” moment later.
- Sound bibliology. We do a lot of repeating of cliches in our circles. Ask the hard questions. Answer them really well. Canonicity, early fathers, all that.
If you have deeply-rooted, thought-through convictions (this is not the same thing as “strong” or “passionate”), you are not afraid to look at RC and EO squarely, understand them, and counter them biblically. So we need to do that pre-emptively.
Unfortunately, this usually happens only in our seminaries, if even there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think, in part, it’s an overcorrection from evangelicalism’s (and most Baptist’s) doing church as though Christianity was born yesterday. We don’t identify with the ancient—our own history—and some crave that sense of rootedness in something that is enduring, stable, and not trying so hard to be “relevant.”
Yes. This. I would also say this is a visceral reaction to the proliferation of megachurches and celebrity evangelicalism.
Last year, our elders spent several weeks teaching on the church creeds and we had our church recite the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. Some in our church objected to these "Roman Catholic" elements in our worship services.
After we read Scripture, we've begun to say, "This is the Word of the Lord." With the congregation replying, "Thanks be to God." Again, we received feedback that this is a Roman Catholic practice. The last several months, we've been teaching our children the New City Catechism in children's church while also reciting the Q/As in our main service. An older lady came up to me this past Sunday and said she struggles when we use the word catechism, because it reminds her of her RC upbringing.
I would say that Baptists (in my experience anyway) are the most hesitant to study and embrace the biblical practices and beliefs of the ancient church. Somehow doing so is tantamount to embracing Roman Catholicism. When someone actually studies church history and understands that not all of it is bad or RC, then it does help with the sense of rootedness. But, convincing a Baptist congregation that the history of faith didn't go directly from Paul to their church is sometimes challenging.
I don't understand Orthodox theology well, except that (like the Catholics) they use a lot of icons/graven images, venerate the saints, and such. One thing that will leave a mark on those "crossing the Bosphorus", though, is the degree to which many Orthodox patriarchs have done the bidding of political masters. For example, Kyrill of the Russian Orthodox Church has often been in the pay of the KGB and FSB. Doing the bidding of people who run political prisons and murder political opponents with polonium, Novichok, and defenestration may be many things, but "Godliness" is not among those things.
At least when my pastor messes up, I am not bound to honor him as some kind of vicar of Christ nonetheless. Just sayin'.
And well said by Aaron on owning our history and coming up with sound bibliology. I've been watching the advance of Reformed theology in our circles for a while, and it has struck me for a while that one of the big attractions to this, as well as to Catholic and Orthodox theology, is that they do not have an anti-academic or anti-scholastic bent. Put in other terms, they're not afraid to use big words or engage with academics of a very different "tribe".
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I think, in part, it’s an overcorrection from evangelicalism’s (and most Baptist’s) doing church as though Christianity was born yesterday. We don’t identify with the ancient—our own history—and some crave that sense of rootedness in something that is enduring, stable, and not trying so hard to be “relevant.”
Yes. This. I would also say this is a visceral reaction to the proliferation of megachurches and celebrity evangelicalism.
What is surprising though, is that most of the defections I am seeing are coming from Reformed Baptist or Reformed Presbyterian. Both of these groups are rooted in strong creeds, confessions and catechisms. Both are rooted in strong conservative liturgies, sometimes even looking a bit like Catholic. Most are not a seeker sensitive model or contemporary worship models. Some don't even allow instruments.
Discussion