Luther and Jezebel

October 31 is Halloween to some. This year, it’ll also be the 507th anniversary of the day Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany. That’s as good a day as any to celebrate the beginning of Protestantism, though it took another dozen years or so to formally organize the new denomination.

It was not the first major split in church history, nor was it the last, but Catholics and Protestants have been sparring about it verbally (and sometimes physically) ever since.

I was raised non-denominational and maintain that position today, so I have no particular ax to grind with either side. I care whether you love Christ, period. Do that, and I promise not to get ruffled by your team jersey. If I can carry on a civilized conversation with a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, I can certainly do it with a Presbyterian.

On Christian Identity

Non-denominationalism is profoundly difficult to maintain. New believers don’t understand the concept of not identifying oneself by any name other than “Christian”, and even youngsters raised to agree with it instinctively prefer a banner to rally under, which explains why the Holy Spirit led the apostle Paul to write 1 Corinthians 1-4. (Apart from Matthew 23:8-10, those four chapters may be the least-practised instructions in the entire New Testament.)

Catholics and believers from a multitude of Protestant denominations (because of course church splits couldn’t stop with Luther) all find non-denominationalism a bit of a joke. They understand how easily common nouns become Proper Names, and figure we won’t be able to maintain our determination to defeat quick and efficient categorization. They may even be right. As a result, those of us who insist upon navigating the question of our identity in Christ between the twin ditches of pride and insecurity tend to develop thick skins. Everybody thinks we’re a bit nuts, and that’s just fine.

One of the things that has kept me non-denominational all these years is the late-dawning realization that the brand names of Christendom are only broad generalizations about beliefs held in common. I have yet to meet a single Christian, Catholic or Protestant, who subscribes personally to everything his church claims to stand for 100% down the line. Many who proudly sport the names “Catholic”, “Protestant” or “evangelical” do not even know Christ, let alone are they rigidly defined in their theological convictions. I recognize that by generally accepted definitions, my own beliefs are both Protestant and evangelical, but I do not formally identify as either. Accordingly, I take all the name-taking and name-calling with a great big grain of salt and carry on, and more than a few of our readers here do much the same.

Antisocial Media

I have mentioned before that I engage in very little social media activity. You will not find me on X, Facebook or Instagram. Even if I thought the practice edifying or useful, I haven’t the time for it. I do engage with a small circle of like-minded readers in a private network from time to time, most of whom are believers of one stripe or another, and naturally the question of who identifies as what leads to the occasional fracas, despite attempts by the moderators to keep things from getting out of hand.

This week, a Catholic troll with whom we are all familiar posted a variant on his usual abuse of Protestantism. A woman I’ll call “Lady MacArthur” (after her oft-expressed devotion for Dear John) took great offense at this. She uploaded the following highlighted excerpt from the troll’s blog post marked up as follows:

She then posted it under the heading “Protestantism is literally Satanic” and began the much venerated online practice of pointing and screeching, which to date has generated 139 comments and 2 requotes, a huge number for our little group and a definite indication the accusation had struck a nerve.

Technical Difficulties

Foolishly, I happened to point out that her highlight was misleading. The troll had not claimed Protestantism is satanic (though likely he believes it), but rather that “the only law of Protestantism is literally Satanic”, which is an entirely different allegation. The “only law of Protestantism” to which he refers is best summed up as “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, a statement generally attributed to occultist Aleister Crowley. Our resident Catholic-under-the-bridge maintains doing what we will is the single thing on which all Protestants can agree — the only universalism among us — since we do not accept the authority of Rome and its church. I’m not sure it’s a fair characterization of Protestantism, but I think we can all agree that Crowley’s statement is, in fact, satanic, and anyone who subscribes to it, however naively they may do so, is theologically unsound.

If you’ve ever tried to break up a schoolyard fight, you’ll know how well it is received when you tell somebody to “Play fair” in the middle of a point-and-screech. Lady MacArthur promptly upped her game:

“There is no good defense of [troll]’s blasphemy against Protestantism.”

In current English usage, “blasphemy” refers to “Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity” or “Irreverent or impious action or expression in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct”. As much as it’s provided a clearer understanding of the word of God over the past five centuries, and a degree of glorious freedom in Christ unknown to Catholicism, I’m not sure Protestantism ought to be considered “sacred”, “inviolable” or “sacrosanct”. It’s probably fair to refer to the charge of blasphemy as a claim made in the absence of sufficient evidence.

Hills Worth Dying On

At this point I disengaged, as I often do when an argument just becomes silly and pointless. Later, one critic tried to shame Protestant men for failing to defend our spiritual integrity in the face of abuse, leaving Lady MacArthur to contend for the faith on our behalf. Meh, I say.

There are plenty of theological principles worth defending. There are even a few claims worth getting angry about. But if the Lord Jesus could reply to the accusation that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul with a calm, dialectical argument (“If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?”), it should not be beyond his servants to do the same. It’s not that the stakes were unimportant: in the very same passage, Jesus points out that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (in which the Pharisees were engaged) will not be forgiven. Nevertheless, the Lord could state his case without losing his cool, and certainly without misrepresenting the arguments of his critics.

I suspect that’s the model we should be trying to follow.

Defending a 500-Year Old

As for the credibility of modern Protestantism in the face of Catholic vituperation, I offer this striking example of a recent and fairly popular online meme on the subject:

Can you disagree? I can’t. If we are being the least bit honest, we must concede that in 500-plus years since the Reformation, some branches of Protestantism have aged more gracefully and biblically than others.

One hates to choose between Luther and Jezebel, but if you force me to pick, I’ll go with Luther every time.