Bryan Cross

TMH has been trying to goad me into talking about him in some sort of serious level. I have no desire to go all Steve Hays on him, but I thought I’d give a sketch of why he’s so easy for me dismiss entirely, perhaps so that if any Protestant readers find themselves flummoxed by him, they might find a way out.

First of all, his whole arguing technique is to make himself immune from challenge by defining everyone who isn’t a Catholic as a simpleton. Some time ago, I ran into a Catholic who asserted that “no serious historian thinks Protestantism is historically justified.” When I called him on it, he said that a serious historian is by definition a Catholic. See here for a similar example in Cross’s rhetoric: If you don’t understand Aquinas, you are not qualified to talk about why you are a Protestant. Since few Protestants are Aquinas experts, and I doubt Cross would affirm that any of those understand the medieval theologian (since they don’t agree with him on much), he’s already won. Therefore, the only acceptable attitude for a Protestant is to meekly listen to what Cross has to say about Aquinas and Catholicism.

Second, Cross falls into the “you’re only allowed to think what the pope says you can think” school of Catholic fundamentalism. I think fundamentalism is boring, stupid, and self-contradictory. If the only thing that matters is what the Holy Father has said and authorized, and he has not put the imprimatur on Bryan Cross’ blog, by Cross’ own arguments, I should ignore his blog and stick to authorized sources like the Catechism, the decretals, and the scholastic doctors. Incidentally, this is what I actually do. I don’t argue with Catholic apologists about Lutheranism. If I ever find myself bored enough to talk to them, I argue with them about whether their interpretation of Catholicism is correct. Cross struts about like he’s the pope, like the version you’re getting from him is the red-letter KJV of Catholicism. But I don’t see his pointy hat. I don’t see the imprimatur on his blog. If we’re only supposed to listen to the One True Authority, well, then we need to stop listening to Bryan Cross. He’s been a Catholic for all of three years, guys. He’s a neophyte.

Third, a lot of what he says and thinks relies on this inability to see any other possibilities than the stratified institution of the RCC with the pope at the top, or some kind of caricature of Protestant ecclesiology where division doesn’t matter, because hey, invisible church. In fact, that summarizes his entire mode of discourse–he discards all but two possibilities, one ruinous and absurd, and the other Catholic. There are only two possible doctrines of justification, two possible ecclesiologies, two possible doctrines of Scripture, two possible doctrines of clerical authority, two possible doctrines of tradition, and so on. Then he declares that if you don’t believe whatever stupid thing he’s decided is the only legitimate Protestant view, you must believe the Catholic position.

If you are not conditioned to notice this and react in proportion to its infantility, you will find yourself either looking like an idiot, defending the absurd position Cross has defined as the only possible non-Catholic belief, or protesting that you don’t believe anything nearly so idiotic and really do agree with him in a Protestant way. Since the rest of his arguments consist of arguing that if you agree with Rome on this or that, then the divide is crossed and you must become a Catholic (which is also a false argument–I agree with Rome on infant baptism, for example), he wins.

Don’t ever fall for a reductionist either-or that divides all theological questions into two possible answers. Even if a seemingly learned scholar does so, it simply proves that he lacks the intellectual acumen to succeed in a more rigorous discipline, or perhaps has gone soft in his old age.