My chief objection to Catholicism is the mediatory priesthood. To the extent I could have sacramentalism without sacerdotalism, I’d be OK. Plus the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary drive me nuts.
This is deeply congruent with my experience, even outside of theology proper. I did a PhD in Classics at Catholic University of America. My dissertation was on the classicizing Greek poetry of Gregory of Nazianzus. Virtually all the tenure track jobs for which I would have been a good fit would have been at Roman Catholic institutions, and generally ones that either exclusively or strongly prefer to hire practicing Roman Catholics. As an orthodox Anglican there were almost no places for me to study early Christian authors from a philological perspective.
In my case I simply decided to leave the academy and return to the software field in which I also had training, and that has worked out quite well. But it is a shame that Protestant institutions are so weak.
Conversion is complex, and for most people will entail motivations beyond just theology. Some of those motivations may even be poorly understood by the convert, at least initially, even if he/she claims to be solely motivated by theological warrant.
A Catholic here, with love for my Protestant brethen. It seems to me that the problem is that there is no such thing as Protestantism. The only thing that Protestant churches have in common is Sola Scriptura and the belief that Catholicism is false. I don't say this as a Catholic. Orthodox churches are not Catholic but they have a common doctrine. Protestant churches don't have it.
So everything has to be replicated. A coherent worldview for each denomination. A funding for the worldview of each denomination. So you lose strenght, which comes from uniting efforts.
You can do pan-Protestant efforts but they address the lowest common denominator in worldview, which is very small. And you cannot have the same enthusiasm for a Pan-protestant organization but for your own denomination.
In short, the intellectual life of Protestantism is fragmented because Protestantism is fragmented. And fragmented efforts cannot compare with an effort like Catholicism. The comparison is not fair. But God sees that you strive for truth and for Him, and sees your efforts. Peace.
"I also was not going to get a position at a university in other Lutheran church bodies, as there were all sorts of political obstacles that would have forced me to compromise on things I was not willing to."
How do Protestants ever expect to compete with Catholics if their version of a big tent excludes people in slightly adjacent denominations? Seriously, if a Lutheran can't be a professor at Lutheran colleges that aren't his flavor of Lutheran, then why try? When people are so strident in their divisions, that their effective population of Christians they can collaborate with academically is .01% of Christianity, then the goal at the end is impossible. How can Dr. Cooper not see this? How do pigeon-holed academics ever meet this goal?
"There is no financially-backed eco-system within Protestant communions that offers clear paths to academic positions, or provides extensive social teaching to aid students in providing a coherent view of social life and philosophy on a large scale"
This is why I'm skeptical that Coverdale House will ever amount to much. I truly hope it does, but I read articles like this and think that Protestants are too hopelessly divided for it to succeed. Regarding the goal of providing a coherent social teaching to young, curious minds (e.g., designer babies and transhumanist technologies), you need to be able to pull from a large body of people and have mechanisms to sort through things and come to a consensus on the truth. Small individual efforts will always fail: the breadth of topics is just too vast.
The church has been accommodating itself to the dominant structural forms of modern organizations.
As a minister and an organizational leadership consultant, I saw thirty years ago that the way we structure organizations, whether businesses, schools, or churches, was beginning to fail. The pressure of financialization and institutional efficiency was a system of extraction, rather than the creation of opportunity.
Emerging over the past couple of years is the growing interest in connection and community building. I have seen this in businesses and in churches. Very little of what I see is the product of the organization's or the church's leadership. It begins organically. I am suggesting that we are moving into an age similar to a time when the first Western missionaries went to non-Western places to serve. We should see Secular culture as the dominant culture that we enter with humility and respect, in order that our actions speak louder than our words
If we are dependent on church leaders to take us there, it will not happen. Just like a corporate CEO, their orientation is to maintain the status quo, and then leave before things get too bad.
May I suggest two statements as a way for us to understand where we can go, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox.
First is to see Christian discipleship as developing leaders. Imagine this as the way we view each member of a church. "All leadership begins with personal initiative to create impact that makes a difference that matters."
The second is what I see in large organizations, even with poor senior leadership. "There is a persistent, residual culture of values that persists because it resides in the relationships of the people." (Ephesians 2:4-10; I Corinthians 13; I Corinthians 12:22-17).
I am already seeing this change taking place. I am hopeful in ways that I have not been before.
"While some do so for intellectual reasons (especially among those who were never deeply involved with any Confessional Protestant tradition), I find such cases to be a significant minority, even when it is claimed that the move across the Tiber was theologically driven."
This strikes me as an astoundingly arrogant statement. Jordan Cooper is claiming that he knows the interior disposition of most converts' hearts more than the people themselves, based not on hard data, just his own personal perceptions. Wow. To open with such a prideful statement claiming to read minds and hearts and understand motivations better than the individuals does not bode well for future claims. Epistemic humility doesn't seem to be Dr. Cooper's strong suit. One gets the feeling that if he were to start making public bets, like Bryan Caplan, that his record would be decidedly worse.
The 5-fold offices of ministry by the Church (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) are best funded by denominations, because most churches only fund 1 or 2 offices: pastors/local teachers, not academic teachers/theologians. Non-denominational churches that choose to remain non-denominational should fund all 5 offices through para-church organizations.
Apostle means sent one, or ambassador - as in cross-cultural missionaries to another ethnos (ethno-linguistic group) who plant churches and church networks.
Prophets in the OT often showed Israel how its government & society didn't measure up to God's will - it was partly political. Isaiah was a member of the political class who prophesied to the political class.
In the decline of denominations since the 1960s, even churches that have a network or denomination tend to give the minimum to their denomination. But they don't necessarily send the savings to a para-church organization either.
Since it's hard to get anyone excited about giving to denominations, I've concluded that the only way to fund the other offices of the church is to recommend to people that they send their tithes and offerings to parachurch organizations, so that it isn't wasted on the town's 20th church building or the town's 20th "pastor."
God said bring the tithes into My storehouse. The storehouse God referred to was a single storehouse in the Temple in Jerusalem, intended to fund all the ministries of the nation, not just pastoral care and worship buildings. Not just the priestly (Cohen) clan within the tribe of Levi, but all the Levites.
"God said bring the tithes into My storehouse." You do know the Catholic Church already manages the donations it receives from the laity in a manner similar to what you describe. Every parish sends a percentage to the diocesan Cathedral (The Parish where the Diocesan Bishop lives). The Diocese then sends that money to the Archdiocese. Then the archdiocese to Rome.
Everytime I read this substack, I always find it filled with articles and comments from Protestants that in essence unintentionally complain about how Protestant denominations should be more like the Catholic Church.
It seems absurd for a Protestant to hold these critiques and yet still refuse to cross the Tiber.
Its not just you on this thread. Its a common theme on this substack. And its kinda wierd. I feel like the blockage is more a deeply rooted misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and a stubborn persistent hatred for it. Not anything theological or rational as the author of this article talks about.
Just a footnote that there is a significant school of RC theology, the "Communio school," that is positioned as distinct from neo-Thomism. This book review gives a good overview:
The Thomistic Institute has a formidable lecture program, many of which are published in podcast form. Not sure if there is a Protestant equivalent, but many of the talks are of interest to other Christians as well. For example, today, May 8, Karin Öberg, astrophysicist at Harvard, lectures in NYC on "Overcoming the Science and Religion Divide."
Very much resonate with you on this. I was alway interested in philosophy and Metaphysics while being raised in a fairly fundamental faith - Seventh Day Adventist- and my greatest life regret is not being able to share the insights that are gleaned from a life of truth-seeking because the church has no room for the deep questions. They make foolish preventable mistakes and demonstrate the universal wisdom That when you stop seeking, you stop knocking on the door, you lose connection with Truth. “Ask and ye shall receive
“ has an obvious obverse that if you stop asking, you stop receiving.
My intellectual heroes are Jacques Ellul and Josiah Royce but the good are obscured in this day and age.
Roman Catholicism has wrestled with this question centuries ago. But it was a Catholic monk who discovered plant cells and in the modern era you regularly hear Catholics say "fides et ratio" from Aquinas I think in response to this very question.
For most of history, science was a natural part of the religious view. People like to frame the scientist Galileo as opposed to the religious church but Galileo was part of the religious church, arguing internally. People don’t get that.
But science made a very wrong turn when it became an institution antithetical to religion and belief. There are well springs of morality that are structured in religion, and without those moral structures as foundation, science topples.
There are many evangelical Protestant circles that at least code as anti-intellectual, using interpretations of Scriptural shibboleths like "child-like faith", "confounding the wise", and the like to justify quashing intellectual inquiry.
And I've mentioned this before--the various branches of Protestantism have their own "magisteria", whether they are willing to admit it or not, and some of them have strict guardrails against some kinds of intellectual inquiry. These magisteria run the gamut from the most progressive Mainline to the most conservative Evangelical, with somewhat predictable results.
C.S. Lewis is highly spoken of in many Evangelical circles, but there are also a not-insignificant number of them who consider him to be a heretic because of something he said here or there. And even his fans wouldn't dare to do apologetics like him, probably for fear of that.
This is spot on. I am at least a generation older the Rev. Dr. Cooper but would agree. I arrived at university from a small-town Baptist background, but strangely for a small rural community we had an amazing scholar and thinker as a pastor. On one hand my moral framework was the pious lives of elderly saints - farmers and miners who took their religion seriously and joyously and on the other, a former seminary professor who wanted to return to parish work. Thanks to his guidance I read reformation era to 19th century theologians and commentaries and began to work through the multi-volumes of the ante-Nicaean church fathers. On arriving at college, I sought out the Christian groups and left disgusted. Campus Crusade for Christ offered no intellectual support against the hammering my world view was taking in the classroom at a mid-teir secular state college, and no support for the moral world that was being attacked in the social world that was so different from my own upbringing. The Lutherans were a presence on campus, and they had a big bowl of nothing - (ELCA), the Catholics had lousy singing nun music, and priests who I suspect were active homosexuals with nothing but be-nice, liberal protestant vibes and their bad liturgy; it was a shock - my faith faltered badly. I returned to my reading independently and found a few bosom friends and muddled through. I wanted to be a historian, but advisors who had figured out I was a conservative and a Christian tried to drive me away from the profession into the liberal protestant ministry, because people like me shouldn't be in academia to quote one of my professors, but with my mind and my intellectual gifts I would make a great {liberal} pastor. There was no subcultural eco-system in this era just before the full-blown birth of the internet to glom onto. I left and focused my life on a trade and church music. I saw my Baptist tradition collapse in the following years and became an Episcopalian, though I am confessional and conservative as the day is long. As a classically trained organist, I would say the prospect was even worse as a church musician. The arts are treated even worse by the conservative Protestant church than the life of the mind. For other friends, more gifted and driven than me, a few found a way forward, most gave up and ended up in business, some left the church altogether, others became liberals or Catholics. I think people should heed what Jordan argues.
As a intellectually curious believer I appreciate this. As an electronics professional three decades ago I made a commitment to the scriptures and rational defense of Christianity. I thought it was reasonable that knowledge of my creator had a legitimately equal demand on my intellect as my career.
Like C. S. Lewis I have some of my most spiritually profound moments, when through theological study I apprehend something new about Jesus.
-recent (7 years) convert to Lutheran, reasoned defender of the faith.
The great thing is to get evangelicals arguing with each other. They are too "nice", too feminine. But what pastor wants to do that? Or to have his youth group doing it?
College is the place to focus on, though. That is a place to argue and learn.
Jordan Cooper's life and actions speak better than when he writes things like this. Yes, the Protestant Intellectual Apparatus was stolen by the 1920's, reference Machen. Yes, what is left is uninspiring and controlled by petty theological tribes. But c'mon, such was it always for real intellectuals. The institutions were not exactly throwing positions and money at Kierkegaard. Nobody is reading any of the institutional academics today, let alone 10 years after they can't get you a tenure track position. When Cooper realized some of that, he took some real action. He has a real chance to be read after he's gone. He's his own person. But that really requires putting down petty grievances like this - which are completely understandable - and writing that intellectual project. It might not even be writing anymore, although I tend to think intellectuals require writing. Institutions move and build up around ideas that can't be moved. Around cornerstones laid.
Why do we choose a particular church (assuming Creedal - Apostles/Nicene/Chalcedon) 5 reasons I can see:
1) Family tradition/I grew up here
2) Locality/Culture (a la SBC in Bible Belt)
3) Geographical proximity (especially in rural locations)
4) Friendly people
5) Doctrinally correct people (rarely, if ever, does this coincide with point 4)
5) Most correct church doctrine (See PCUSA/PCA/OPC)
6) Best pastor (relates to point 6. Change of pastor results in a complete reevaluation.)
7) History
All of these reasons can factor into one's decision regarding church membership. I'm sure there are others I'm missing (financial health/affluence of local church body, worship style, other personal reasons). I have seen them all in practice, and been pushed towards a church based on any and all of them. Your arguments key towards only one of these reasons, Most Correct Doctrine. Yes, this is important, but is it most important? Especially considering point 5, where the people may or may not care about the doctrine. Some may even actively reject it, but sure, it's possible I might join a church because the historic church has the right doctrine (See Redeemed Zoomer/PCUSA). Is this going to lead to a healthy and vibrant spiritual body of believers, or a feeling of intense loneliness?
My guess is that many of the people that enter the river do so not purely for doctrinal reasons, but because they've seen the various dynamics carried out and see that they all fluctuate over time. The one thing that Rome has going for it is history. Yes, there are crazy popes, crazy catholics, crazy priests, crazy proclamations, and crazy doctrines. But how much do these really matter to the individual? At some point, it's reasonable to throw up one's hands, point to #8 (history and unity), and just make the best of it...knowing that all of these other points are shifting sand throughout one's life.
Personally, I really like Lutheran doctrine, but worship at an Evangelical Free (essentially SBC) church, alongside devoted believers and a faithful pastor. I would change a great many things, but I must make the best decision for me and for my family in my given place. When something changes, I will have to reevaluate, unless I am all-in on point #1 (family tradition). This is the American Way. But it's completely reasonable to punt, and I see this as a driver of many RCC moves.
My chief objection to Catholicism is the mediatory priesthood. To the extent I could have sacramentalism without sacerdotalism, I’d be OK. Plus the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary drive me nuts.
This is deeply congruent with my experience, even outside of theology proper. I did a PhD in Classics at Catholic University of America. My dissertation was on the classicizing Greek poetry of Gregory of Nazianzus. Virtually all the tenure track jobs for which I would have been a good fit would have been at Roman Catholic institutions, and generally ones that either exclusively or strongly prefer to hire practicing Roman Catholics. As an orthodox Anglican there were almost no places for me to study early Christian authors from a philological perspective.
In my case I simply decided to leave the academy and return to the software field in which I also had training, and that has worked out quite well. But it is a shame that Protestant institutions are so weak.
Conversion is complex, and for most people will entail motivations beyond just theology. Some of those motivations may even be poorly understood by the convert, at least initially, even if he/she claims to be solely motivated by theological warrant.
A Catholic here, with love for my Protestant brethen. It seems to me that the problem is that there is no such thing as Protestantism. The only thing that Protestant churches have in common is Sola Scriptura and the belief that Catholicism is false. I don't say this as a Catholic. Orthodox churches are not Catholic but they have a common doctrine. Protestant churches don't have it.
So everything has to be replicated. A coherent worldview for each denomination. A funding for the worldview of each denomination. So you lose strenght, which comes from uniting efforts.
You can do pan-Protestant efforts but they address the lowest common denominator in worldview, which is very small. And you cannot have the same enthusiasm for a Pan-protestant organization but for your own denomination.
In short, the intellectual life of Protestantism is fragmented because Protestantism is fragmented. And fragmented efforts cannot compare with an effort like Catholicism. The comparison is not fair. But God sees that you strive for truth and for Him, and sees your efforts. Peace.
"I also was not going to get a position at a university in other Lutheran church bodies, as there were all sorts of political obstacles that would have forced me to compromise on things I was not willing to."
How do Protestants ever expect to compete with Catholics if their version of a big tent excludes people in slightly adjacent denominations? Seriously, if a Lutheran can't be a professor at Lutheran colleges that aren't his flavor of Lutheran, then why try? When people are so strident in their divisions, that their effective population of Christians they can collaborate with academically is .01% of Christianity, then the goal at the end is impossible. How can Dr. Cooper not see this? How do pigeon-holed academics ever meet this goal?
"There is no financially-backed eco-system within Protestant communions that offers clear paths to academic positions, or provides extensive social teaching to aid students in providing a coherent view of social life and philosophy on a large scale"
This is why I'm skeptical that Coverdale House will ever amount to much. I truly hope it does, but I read articles like this and think that Protestants are too hopelessly divided for it to succeed. Regarding the goal of providing a coherent social teaching to young, curious minds (e.g., designer babies and transhumanist technologies), you need to be able to pull from a large body of people and have mechanisms to sort through things and come to a consensus on the truth. Small individual efforts will always fail: the breadth of topics is just too vast.
There is another way to approach these questions.
The church has been accommodating itself to the dominant structural forms of modern organizations.
As a minister and an organizational leadership consultant, I saw thirty years ago that the way we structure organizations, whether businesses, schools, or churches, was beginning to fail. The pressure of financialization and institutional efficiency was a system of extraction, rather than the creation of opportunity.
Emerging over the past couple of years is the growing interest in connection and community building. I have seen this in businesses and in churches. Very little of what I see is the product of the organization's or the church's leadership. It begins organically. I am suggesting that we are moving into an age similar to a time when the first Western missionaries went to non-Western places to serve. We should see Secular culture as the dominant culture that we enter with humility and respect, in order that our actions speak louder than our words
If we are dependent on church leaders to take us there, it will not happen. Just like a corporate CEO, their orientation is to maintain the status quo, and then leave before things get too bad.
May I suggest two statements as a way for us to understand where we can go, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox.
First is to see Christian discipleship as developing leaders. Imagine this as the way we view each member of a church. "All leadership begins with personal initiative to create impact that makes a difference that matters."
The second is what I see in large organizations, even with poor senior leadership. "There is a persistent, residual culture of values that persists because it resides in the relationships of the people." (Ephesians 2:4-10; I Corinthians 13; I Corinthians 12:22-17).
I am already seeing this change taking place. I am hopeful in ways that I have not been before.
"While some do so for intellectual reasons (especially among those who were never deeply involved with any Confessional Protestant tradition), I find such cases to be a significant minority, even when it is claimed that the move across the Tiber was theologically driven."
This strikes me as an astoundingly arrogant statement. Jordan Cooper is claiming that he knows the interior disposition of most converts' hearts more than the people themselves, based not on hard data, just his own personal perceptions. Wow. To open with such a prideful statement claiming to read minds and hearts and understand motivations better than the individuals does not bode well for future claims. Epistemic humility doesn't seem to be Dr. Cooper's strong suit. One gets the feeling that if he were to start making public bets, like Bryan Caplan, that his record would be decidedly worse.
https://www.econlib.org/my-complete-bet-wiki/
The 5-fold offices of ministry by the Church (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) are best funded by denominations, because most churches only fund 1 or 2 offices: pastors/local teachers, not academic teachers/theologians. Non-denominational churches that choose to remain non-denominational should fund all 5 offices through para-church organizations.
Apostle means sent one, or ambassador - as in cross-cultural missionaries to another ethnos (ethno-linguistic group) who plant churches and church networks.
Prophets in the OT often showed Israel how its government & society didn't measure up to God's will - it was partly political. Isaiah was a member of the political class who prophesied to the political class.
In the decline of denominations since the 1960s, even churches that have a network or denomination tend to give the minimum to their denomination. But they don't necessarily send the savings to a para-church organization either.
Since it's hard to get anyone excited about giving to denominations, I've concluded that the only way to fund the other offices of the church is to recommend to people that they send their tithes and offerings to parachurch organizations, so that it isn't wasted on the town's 20th church building or the town's 20th "pastor."
God said bring the tithes into My storehouse. The storehouse God referred to was a single storehouse in the Temple in Jerusalem, intended to fund all the ministries of the nation, not just pastoral care and worship buildings. Not just the priestly (Cohen) clan within the tribe of Levi, but all the Levites.
"God said bring the tithes into My storehouse." You do know the Catholic Church already manages the donations it receives from the laity in a manner similar to what you describe. Every parish sends a percentage to the diocesan Cathedral (The Parish where the Diocesan Bishop lives). The Diocese then sends that money to the Archdiocese. Then the archdiocese to Rome.
Everytime I read this substack, I always find it filled with articles and comments from Protestants that in essence unintentionally complain about how Protestant denominations should be more like the Catholic Church.
It seems absurd for a Protestant to hold these critiques and yet still refuse to cross the Tiber.
While writing, I was fully aware that your tradition doesn't have this problem. But I'm not going to switch only for this one reason
Its not just you on this thread. Its a common theme on this substack. And its kinda wierd. I feel like the blockage is more a deeply rooted misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and a stubborn persistent hatred for it. Not anything theological or rational as the author of this article talks about.
Just a footnote that there is a significant school of RC theology, the "Communio school," that is positioned as distinct from neo-Thomism. This book review gives a good overview:
https://firstthings.com/ratzinger-in-the-whirlwind/
The Thomistic Institute has a formidable lecture program, many of which are published in podcast form. Not sure if there is a Protestant equivalent, but many of the talks are of interest to other Christians as well. For example, today, May 8, Karin Öberg, astrophysicist at Harvard, lectures in NYC on "Overcoming the Science and Religion Divide."
https://thomisticinstitute.org/events?cat=lecture
https://podcast.thomisticinstitute.org/
Very much resonate with you on this. I was alway interested in philosophy and Metaphysics while being raised in a fairly fundamental faith - Seventh Day Adventist- and my greatest life regret is not being able to share the insights that are gleaned from a life of truth-seeking because the church has no room for the deep questions. They make foolish preventable mistakes and demonstrate the universal wisdom That when you stop seeking, you stop knocking on the door, you lose connection with Truth. “Ask and ye shall receive
“ has an obvious obverse that if you stop asking, you stop receiving.
My intellectual heroes are Jacques Ellul and Josiah Royce but the good are obscured in this day and age.
You have to seek them out! Glad I found you.
Roman Catholicism has wrestled with this question centuries ago. But it was a Catholic monk who discovered plant cells and in the modern era you regularly hear Catholics say "fides et ratio" from Aquinas I think in response to this very question.
For most of history, science was a natural part of the religious view. People like to frame the scientist Galileo as opposed to the religious church but Galileo was part of the religious church, arguing internally. People don’t get that.
But science made a very wrong turn when it became an institution antithetical to religion and belief. There are well springs of morality that are structured in religion, and without those moral structures as foundation, science topples.
Yeah science doesn't answer questions about what we should and shouldn't do. Mostly just what and how.
There are many evangelical Protestant circles that at least code as anti-intellectual, using interpretations of Scriptural shibboleths like "child-like faith", "confounding the wise", and the like to justify quashing intellectual inquiry.
And I've mentioned this before--the various branches of Protestantism have their own "magisteria", whether they are willing to admit it or not, and some of them have strict guardrails against some kinds of intellectual inquiry. These magisteria run the gamut from the most progressive Mainline to the most conservative Evangelical, with somewhat predictable results.
C.S. Lewis is highly spoken of in many Evangelical circles, but there are also a not-insignificant number of them who consider him to be a heretic because of something he said here or there. And even his fans wouldn't dare to do apologetics like him, probably for fear of that.
This is spot on. I am at least a generation older the Rev. Dr. Cooper but would agree. I arrived at university from a small-town Baptist background, but strangely for a small rural community we had an amazing scholar and thinker as a pastor. On one hand my moral framework was the pious lives of elderly saints - farmers and miners who took their religion seriously and joyously and on the other, a former seminary professor who wanted to return to parish work. Thanks to his guidance I read reformation era to 19th century theologians and commentaries and began to work through the multi-volumes of the ante-Nicaean church fathers. On arriving at college, I sought out the Christian groups and left disgusted. Campus Crusade for Christ offered no intellectual support against the hammering my world view was taking in the classroom at a mid-teir secular state college, and no support for the moral world that was being attacked in the social world that was so different from my own upbringing. The Lutherans were a presence on campus, and they had a big bowl of nothing - (ELCA), the Catholics had lousy singing nun music, and priests who I suspect were active homosexuals with nothing but be-nice, liberal protestant vibes and their bad liturgy; it was a shock - my faith faltered badly. I returned to my reading independently and found a few bosom friends and muddled through. I wanted to be a historian, but advisors who had figured out I was a conservative and a Christian tried to drive me away from the profession into the liberal protestant ministry, because people like me shouldn't be in academia to quote one of my professors, but with my mind and my intellectual gifts I would make a great {liberal} pastor. There was no subcultural eco-system in this era just before the full-blown birth of the internet to glom onto. I left and focused my life on a trade and church music. I saw my Baptist tradition collapse in the following years and became an Episcopalian, though I am confessional and conservative as the day is long. As a classically trained organist, I would say the prospect was even worse as a church musician. The arts are treated even worse by the conservative Protestant church than the life of the mind. For other friends, more gifted and driven than me, a few found a way forward, most gave up and ended up in business, some left the church altogether, others became liberals or Catholics. I think people should heed what Jordan argues.
As a intellectually curious believer I appreciate this. As an electronics professional three decades ago I made a commitment to the scriptures and rational defense of Christianity. I thought it was reasonable that knowledge of my creator had a legitimately equal demand on my intellect as my career.
Like C. S. Lewis I have some of my most spiritually profound moments, when through theological study I apprehend something new about Jesus.
-recent (7 years) convert to Lutheran, reasoned defender of the faith.
The great thing is to get evangelicals arguing with each other. They are too "nice", too feminine. But what pastor wants to do that? Or to have his youth group doing it?
College is the place to focus on, though. That is a place to argue and learn.
Jordan Cooper's life and actions speak better than when he writes things like this. Yes, the Protestant Intellectual Apparatus was stolen by the 1920's, reference Machen. Yes, what is left is uninspiring and controlled by petty theological tribes. But c'mon, such was it always for real intellectuals. The institutions were not exactly throwing positions and money at Kierkegaard. Nobody is reading any of the institutional academics today, let alone 10 years after they can't get you a tenure track position. When Cooper realized some of that, he took some real action. He has a real chance to be read after he's gone. He's his own person. But that really requires putting down petty grievances like this - which are completely understandable - and writing that intellectual project. It might not even be writing anymore, although I tend to think intellectuals require writing. Institutions move and build up around ideas that can't be moved. Around cornerstones laid.
Why do we choose a particular church (assuming Creedal - Apostles/Nicene/Chalcedon) 5 reasons I can see:
1) Family tradition/I grew up here
2) Locality/Culture (a la SBC in Bible Belt)
3) Geographical proximity (especially in rural locations)
4) Friendly people
5) Doctrinally correct people (rarely, if ever, does this coincide with point 4)
5) Most correct church doctrine (See PCUSA/PCA/OPC)
6) Best pastor (relates to point 6. Change of pastor results in a complete reevaluation.)
7) History
All of these reasons can factor into one's decision regarding church membership. I'm sure there are others I'm missing (financial health/affluence of local church body, worship style, other personal reasons). I have seen them all in practice, and been pushed towards a church based on any and all of them. Your arguments key towards only one of these reasons, Most Correct Doctrine. Yes, this is important, but is it most important? Especially considering point 5, where the people may or may not care about the doctrine. Some may even actively reject it, but sure, it's possible I might join a church because the historic church has the right doctrine (See Redeemed Zoomer/PCUSA). Is this going to lead to a healthy and vibrant spiritual body of believers, or a feeling of intense loneliness?
My guess is that many of the people that enter the river do so not purely for doctrinal reasons, but because they've seen the various dynamics carried out and see that they all fluctuate over time. The one thing that Rome has going for it is history. Yes, there are crazy popes, crazy catholics, crazy priests, crazy proclamations, and crazy doctrines. But how much do these really matter to the individual? At some point, it's reasonable to throw up one's hands, point to #8 (history and unity), and just make the best of it...knowing that all of these other points are shifting sand throughout one's life.
Personally, I really like Lutheran doctrine, but worship at an Evangelical Free (essentially SBC) church, alongside devoted believers and a faithful pastor. I would change a great many things, but I must make the best decision for me and for my family in my given place. When something changes, I will have to reevaluate, unless I am all-in on point #1 (family tradition). This is the American Way. But it's completely reasonable to punt, and I see this as a driver of many RCC moves.
When I attended a SBC church, most of the members fell into one of three buckets:
1) "My mom/dad was a Baptist, her mom was a Baptist, and her mom was a Baptist"
2) Former/children of Pentecostals (Church of God, AG, etc.) looking for something more progressive
3) People who had the Evangelical "come to Jesus" testimonial moment
Not much in the way of intellectual inquirers or casual seekers--and the former wasn't really welcome.