Some Pros and Cons for Papal Supremacy

The Roman Church's use of the title "Catholic," derived from the Greek word for "universal," presents a historical and theological tension. While undoubtedly an ancient and globally significant communion, its claim to universality is challenged by the historical reality that the Bishop of Rome was initially understood as a co-equal patriarch alongside the leaders of other major Christian centers like Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, particularly during the era of the first seven Ecumenical Councils (ending 787 CE). The later assertion of Roman primacy contributed significantly to the tragic divisions within Christendom, leading first to the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox and subsequently to the fractures of the Protestant Reformation, meaning the Roman Church has arguably never represented the entirety of the universal Church. 

The Inclusive Gospel of School Chaplaincy

Especially on Christian High Holy Days like Ash Wednesday, I am asked how School Chaplains proclaim the Good News of Jesus in the midst of a diverse school environment, with students and staff of all faiths and no faith at all. Unlike local Episcopal parishes, in our pews we have Christians and Muslims, Jews and Gentiles, Hindus and Buddhists, Sikh and Secular, and everyone in between and beyond. I could use fancy language and talk about how chaplains navigate the particularity of Christ's Incarnation and the universality of God's Love, or about how we discern between models of Theological exclusivism and pluralism and inclusivism. But let me see if I can do it in a few paragraphs without specialized language:

Three Strands of Classical Liberalism

Recently, I have been part of a book study of Patrick J. Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed”. Three conversations into Deneen and I find myself continually frustrated by his loose use of the word Liberalism to mean anything and everything corrosive in contemporary culture, ranging from radical libertarianism to deconstructive relativism to unrestrained consumer capitalism. I also find he is quick to demonize liberalism– or rather his version of “liberalism”-- while very reticent to acknowledge the good liberalism has brought, which has never appeared en masse in any large society on earth. Goods such as universal suffrage, modern science, sustained engagement across radically different cultures, and civil rights for all kinds of people historically excluded or diminished across cultures (women, POC, LGBTQ, disabled, etc.). When I decide where to eat at night, or where to work on the weekday, or where to worship on the weekend, I have the choice between dozens of cultures and thousands of different opportunities, all within 15 minutes of my house. And that doesn’t happen without Liberalism. So, in order to balance the ledger, I would like to present my corrective to Deneen, in what I am calling the three strands of Classical Liberalism.

The Psychological function of Theodicy

Over the years, no theological subject has consumed quite as much of my time in sermons and pastoral counseling and teaching and writing as the subject of Theodicy has. Theodicy is the classical problem of how to view evil, suffering, and death in light of the claim that God is real, and God really is good and powerful and wise. It is the question of how to justify this Good God in light of a world filled to the brim with horrific suffering, or at least how to justify us who believe there is such a God. I have written essays about it, made charts detailing it, and reviewed books about it. And almost all of that has been spent in describing the objective state of affairs in the world in light of Theodicy: Is God real or not? Is God good or not?

But I have not spent a whole lot of time talking about how the problems– and “solutions”-- of Theodicy function for those of us who are engaged in this discussion. Here I would like to dive a little deeper into an area I skim the surface of in my longest essay on the Monstrosity of Theodicy:

Textual Legalism versus Values Trajectory in applying Biblical Commands

The selective and often hypocritical application of biblical law is a persistent feature in modern discourse. It's a pattern where scripture functions like an à la carte menu: certain laws, particularly those useful for condemning others, are treated as immutable, literal commands, while those that impinge upon personal convenience or lifestyle are readily dismissed. One sees this clearly when, for instance, some heterosexual cis-gender individuals champion a strict interpretation of Levitical passages concerning sexuality to marginalize LGBTQ+ people. Yet, this same demand for literal adherence frequently evaporates when faced with equally explicit commands to challenge the oppression that builds wealth, welcome immigrants, reject greed, avoid dishonesty, or provide sacrificially for the poor—injunctions that might require significant personal or societal change. This selective legalism ultimately undermines its own claims by applying biblical authority inconsistently, weaponizing it against some while shielding the self.