Meta Cognitions

Jack’s reflections on the discussion surrounding this month’s topic.

Readership: Christians
Theme: Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage
Length: 2,400 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes

Overview

This series on Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage originated as a 6 post mini-theme, but as unforeseen supplementary topics unfolded, it quickly snowballed into a full month’s theme.

One of the first tasks in this series was to dig into the status of our ecumenical understanding of Sacramental Marriage, not from a subjective point of view, but as a construct.  For the initial topic, I focused on making a distinction between the purposes for which the church might practice the administration of Sacramental Marriage as a construct and how it is regarded and experienced by the layman.  Several questions arose which called for subsequent posts.  Many other questions came up that were not pursued very far.

Weblogs are not only a learning experience for the reader, but also for the author.

After the first few posts, I discovered that I/we knew very little, and what I/we thought we knew was fraught with false notions.  So I had to take everything apart, go back to look at the history, compare Cathodox and Protestant perspectives, and examine everything. After all I have written on this theme, totaling about 20,000 words in posts plus another 10,000 in my study notes, I feel I have only scratched the surface.

Although the response has been dramatic and fraught with contention, the actual understanding conveyed therein has been just as diffuse as my own. Just as I suspected, as stated in the first post in this series, nobody — not even Catholics — really know what Sacramental Marriage is all about, or at least, not enough to communicate it in words that others can understand and relate to.

The efficiency of our communication of this topic was and still is the first obstacle that we need to overcome before we can move on to more pertinent issues, like how to apprehend more sanctity in marriage. Even now, I am not sure we are able to discuss these things in meaningful terms with others.  About half way through, some commenters went psychopolemic, and others gave up and quit.

Looking back, this series might be better described as “An Exercise in Ecumenical Discussion” with Sacramental Marriage being only one of the main topics of the discussion.

Conflict

The fray has been pretty bloody.  This month has seen four commenters sent to the brig. I had to put more commenters in moderation in one day (2) than I have in the whole previous history of this blog (1).

It grieves me to have to moderate commenters who are insightful and sharp Christians — two especially.

Derek L. Ramsey (Anabaptist) has been emphasizing polemic argumentation from a Protestant point of view, using Protestant assumptions and Protestant terminology.  Sharkly (Protestant) uses a soapbox, shoehorn, funnel, and plunger to force his exegeses down everyone’s throats. This is why all their arguments are explosive firebombs.  There has been no shortage of these kinds of arguments for the past 500 years or so, and it has accomplished little more than stoking ongoing division.

I consider the benefit of such polemics and bombastic brimstone to be limited to an exercise in philosophy and philosophical dominance, respectively.  In practice, it is a distraction from and/or an obstruction to online fellowship, repentance, and heart-led living.  No argument ever convinced a person to forsake his ego integrity and drop his obsession with rhetorical dominance in favor of having faith.

Is there any Catholic who, upon reading Derek’s diatribes, will say, “By jove, Derek is right! CCC#3,129,438 is unscriptural!  I’m going to convert to Lutheranism (or whatever) TODAY so that I can embarrass my family and friends and be seen by them as an unstable heretic!”

Is there any Christian alive who, upon reading Sharkly’s condemnations, will come to the conclusion that he knows about 13 women in his church who should face capital punishment under the Mosaic Law and then ask his pastor to do something about it?

No. Aristotelian arguments cannot redeem hearts any more than sound logic can be used to create attraction in women.

Unity of Purpose, NOT Unity of Rhetoric

Unity of purpose is what brings people together. Unity of rhetoric is what we call NPCs repeating the platitudes of a narrative and getting angry and offended by anyone who doesn’t parrot the same half-baked bromides.

Without a shared purpose, any social enterprise will fall apart. In practice, if there are fundamental disagreements about goals and/or purposes, then there will be a schism. For example…

• If two of the best players on a sports team won’t mutually agree on following a strategy because they each want all the glory for themselves, then the whole team loses.
• If a husband wants a Christian / traditional marriage and his wife wants an egalitarian marriage, then a battle for power will arise and marital strife will ensue.
• The early church couldn’t agree about church leadership, so The Great Schism emerged in the 11^th century (1054).
• Protestant reformers disagreed about the authority of the church and how faith should be exercised, among other things, so the Reformation happened in the 16^th century.
• The secular Red Pill insisted that evolutionary psychology, Game, understanding women, etc. was only to get laid and that morality was an obstacle. Christian men disagreed with this, instead emphasizing sexual continence, marriage, morality, family formation, and glorifyng God. So the Christian Manosphere and the Secular Manosphere made a break in 2020.
• Certain commenters vehemently acted in opposition to the purposes of Dalrock’s blog and violated the comment policy, so they got canned in 2018.
• Certain commenters vehemently acted in opposition to the purposes of the Σ Frame blog and violated the comment policy, so they got canned in 2023.

This is not rocket science.

Trolling in Effect

Derek’s post, Unity in the Church (2023/6/22), shows that he still doesn’t get it. He writes,

“One of the repeating themes among critics of the church is that disagreement is the same as disunity and that conformity is the mark of unity. Neither of these are true statements.”

The statements are only untrue within a certain context in which it is assumed that (1) everyone values communication and increasing understanding as the purposes of having the discussion and (2) disagreement is limited to the conclusions and the interpretations of a logical exercise. However, if one’s purpose is to (1) disrupt the discussion by stoking tension and unrest, (2) dominate the discussion, or (3) intimidate and/or proselytize others with walls of technicalities and/or hellfire sermons respectively, then the foundational principle of arguing in good faith has been breeched. This is trolling in effect.

Polemics of this style is the grotesque half-breed ogre of evangelism and Platonic reasoning — a mixture of Legalism + Hellenism + Condemnation = Hell. Aristotelian logic and faith mix together like oil and water, so you need to add the emulsifier of a shared purpose to make it all blend together.

Sola Polemica!

In one comment, Derek revealed that he does understand my purpose, but he considers polemics to have greater soteriological value.  He even goes so far to say that my purpose is a lie that is outside the authority of Christ.

“Sigma Frame has an implied mission to be ecumenical: to help men with their relationships first and foremost, regardless of their faith. Whenever I point out that scripture needs to be followed first and not the traditions of men, this derails the discussion.”

This is the second time Derek has boasted of disrupting the discussion at Σ Frame.

Derek’s approach here is very Sola Scriptura, but it’s not very Evangelical.

No one is saying that scripture should be ignored. We unwrap scripture in nearly every post, and I am not following any traditions of men.

“In other words, if the underlying assumptions in their arguments are invalid, then the arguments themselves are invalid and I don’t bother continuing to discuss those topics. Everything should be derailed and discussion should instead focus on correcting the false assumptions.”

IOW, social interactions and friendships should be discarded if Derek doesn’t approve of their assumptions and they refuse to be converted to his way of thinking.

“The problem is that Sigma Frame is being utilitarian, not ecumenical. One cannot be ecumenical unless one is part of the church, and to do that you have to be under the authority of Christ. and do what he says. An inter-faith approach is, by definition, a lie, because it says that there is a legitimate path of unity outside the unity of Christ. For Christ came to divide.”

Derek’s last paragraph is a word salad. Apparently, he associates ecumenicalism with membership to an established church (no, I’m not representing any established church authority), and then he equivocates that church authority is akin to the authority of Christ. This is ironic because he is Anabaptist, but this perspective is very Sola Ecclesia.

In summary, a little bit of Sola Ecclesia, a little bit of Sola Scriptura, and a liberal dose of legalism are what Derek uses to prop up his arguments.

Aside from all the word play, it is obvious that Derek believes Catholics and probably other denominations too are going to hell simply because they blithely accept CCC#2,413,539 without any critical review (when they don’t even know anything about it), so he thinks he has to proselytize them to save their souls. This viewpoint is very typical of Evangelical Protestants. Except Derek thinks polemics is going to win minds and souls, so he prioritizes this over having a shared purpose.

This is not Sola Ecclesia nor Sola Scriptura, it is Sola Polemica!

I don’t think God works that way. I believe God works through our daily activities and through our relationships with others. I believe God works in us and through us, especially when we share our thoughts and embark on a shared purpose. We discover God’s purposes by doing things in life with other people, not by being keyboard warriors.

Furthermore, a man doesn’t have the spiritual authority to tell another man he is wrong unless he is first established as a genuine authority in that man’s life, and he is willing to work through the issues with that man. That’s called ministry. In the absence of this genuine authority, telling others they are wrong is obnoxious, pharisaical, and detrimental. In my writings, I do not claim to be an authority, but I know that truth is it’s own authority, and it is my hope that men might get a taste of the truth from reading here. It is only by the power of God that this can occur.

It pains me to see Christians identify with a church tradition, or polemic argumentation, more than with Christ, and to penalize each other for their eccentricities rather than appreciate them for what they’re doing well.

A Statement of Purpose

If I were to rewrite Derek’s assessment with more clarity and precision, it would be as follows.

Sigma Frame has a mission to help Christian men to renew their minds towards developing confidence and faith foremost, masculinity second, and in the process learn how to handle their relationships better. Men of all stripes are welcomed, regardless of their faith tradition or lack thereof. (Yes, ecumenicalism is implied but not emphasized.)

Men are welcomed to present their viewpoints for the purpose of sharing ideas and identifying underlying assumptions that they may hold. Discussion is necessary to determine whether arguments are beneficial / useful / valid or not. Men should be respectful to other men in the process, whether their arguments themselves are valid or not. The focus should be on building up the individual man, and men in general by extension.

Shared Purpose as an Expression of Faith

For anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet, the main conflict between myself and certain inflammatory commenters is one of purpose. 

Shared interests are what draw men together.  Opposed purposes make them competitors.

Similar to what Ed Hurst described in Dealing with Allies (2023/6/12), I do not expect every man who shares my purpose to fully agree with me in every minutiae of political or religious doctrine before I’d be willing to work with him or hold out my hand to help him.  But if our purposes (which arise from faith convictions) are opposed, or trust cannot be established, then I must draw the line.

I know many regular readers consider this online community to be a form of church, (and in some ways it truly is). But it is not my purpose to play the role of an indoctrination inquisitor running about with a bible and a gavel in hand in an effort to censor or stamp out every disagreement with whatever doctrinal or ecclesiastical policy might be assumed. Instead, I see this blog to be more like “iron sharpening iron” — a forum attuned to support men’s learning, practice, and training in the area of confidence, faith, and masculinity. It’s not a cult or sect. It’s a basic thing common to all men. It’s not Sunday School, but it IS a Bible class. We reference the Bible as a playbook for life containing plays that have long been forgotten and are now out of fashion. Most anyone can read the Bible and get the notion that they understand how it’s supposed to work, but actually, no one really knows how those plays work anymore, at least, not enough to make them work in reality. As a couple commenters have said, right now it’s all chance, luck, hit-or-miss, “by the grace of God”, etc. We’re facing the fact that men have dropped the ball somewhere, sometime before any of us were born, and we’re doing our best to figure it out.

Given the purpose and aim of this blog, and through the context of what is posted and commented, it should be evident that we must stick together and support each other. The most on-topic discussion we could have is correcting mistakes and healing wounds. And where it’s too late to heal, it is to get us back on our feet and moving towards where we need to be going.

Polemics are off-topic, as is condemning other faith traditions, especially as an outsider who has no first hand knowledge of the situation. Yes, it’s fine to mention your religious background; it’s fine to point out problems with established churches and traditions; it’s fine to construct platonic arguments, but it’s not fine to hammer on the law such to prevent others from entering in; it’s not fine to arrogantly yammer about religious precepts as a way to insult others who are trying to build hope.

We need to emphasize the common ground — a shared purpose. We have wasted too much time and virtual ink sniping at each other over polemics. We have enough trouble supporting a common goal of facing the evils that surround us.

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: Unity (2014/4/19)
• Σ Frame: Divided We Fall (2023/6/6)
• Radix Fidem: Dealing with Allies (2023/6/12)
• Catacomb Resident: A Rescue Operation (2023/6/19)
• Catacomb Resident: Meta and Covenant Lore (2023/6/20)
• Radix Fidem: Kingdom Warfare (2023/6/24)