Online And Outside the Institutions

A lot of us want institutions to be clean, brave, and instantly fixed and then we join one, try to lead, and discover the painful math of limited power, limited time, and real people. We take that tension head-on by talking about what we’re calling the “Elijah syndrome”: the outsider’s sense that the whole system is compromised and that faithfulness can only exist at a distance.

-

Mere Fidelity is a podcast from Mere Orthodoxy and is listener-supported. If you would like to support this work, become a Mere Orthodoxy Member today at http://mereorthodoxy.com/membership.

Get 30% of the Baker Book of the Month, The Pursuit of Character: Recovering the Virtues, by going to: http://bakerbookhouse.com/pages/mere-fidelity

Register for Beeson Divinity School's 2026 Preaching Conference, July 14-16 in Birmingham, Alabama: https://www.samford.edu/beeson-divinity/preaching-institute/preaching-conference?utm_source=Mere+Orthodoxy&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=Preaching+Conference+2026

Transcript

New Mirror Orthodoxy Website Perks

Ian Harber 0:02

Mirror Orthodoxy has a brand new website. We've completely redesigned our website with readers in mind. From the layout to dark mode, downloadable PDFs and audio articles, a new dashboard for members that lets you bookmark articles, save quotes to a commonplace book, access your full reading history, get digital editions of all the past journals, cite themes based on the church calendar, and much more. There has never been a better time to become a member of Mirror Orthodoxy than right now. Through the end of June, get 20% off your first year of an angel membership or three months of a monthly membership. Not only will you get access to an incredible online experience, you'll support the ongoing work of Mirror Orthodoxy, Mirror Fidelity, and much more to come. Mirror Orthodoxy is a reader-supported publication. We can do this work because of readers and listeners like you. Go to Mir Orthodoxy.com today to see the new site and get 20% off your first year of an annual membership or three months of a monthly membership. That's Mirorthodoxy.com to see the new site and get 20% off membership today.

Book Of The Month Discount

Derek Rishmawy 1:28

Our June book of the month is The Pursuit of Character Recovering the Virtues by Matthew Arbo. You can receive a 30% discount on this title and all previous books of the month by visiting BakerBookhouse.com backslash pages backslash Mere Fidelity. You can find that link in our show notes to get 30% off of our book of the month from Lexum Press.

Why Institutions Feel So Broken

Derek Rishmawy 1:51

Hello and welcome to another episode of Mere Fidelity, a podcast by Mere Orthodoxy, where we think about the word of God and the world we live in. My name is Derek Schmatt. I'll be your host for the day. And I'm joined by regular cast and crew members, Alistair Roberts and James Wood. Good to see you, fellas.

SPEAKER_05 2:05

Glad to be here.

Derek Rishmawy 2:06

Um so today we thought we'd take up an interesting uh subject that Alistair proposed. Uh we're kind of nicknaming it the the the accusation, Derek. Yes, it is. It is the the kind of the the the the Elijah syndrome and and kind of we're gonna be dealing with um institutional dynamics and outsider outsider perspectives. And I thought it might be helpful to kind of reflect on that as I'm I'm prepping to head in a couple of weeks towards uh towards General Assembly. There's for for the PCA, there's a lot of general assemblies happen happening, there's SBC, uh whatever they call their massive gathering that dwarfs ours, but you know, whatever. There's a lot of there there's just a lot of um institutional gatherings and decision-making processes that are or aren't going very well um uh from from from the outside. And so we thought it might be uh good to reflect on that uh as folks who have been on the inside and on the outside and and inhabited both space at the same time. So Alistair, why don't you go ahead and lead us in on that and kind of set up the problem that we want the the first problem we want to start kind of peeling that onion, however you want to however you want to think about it.

Elijah, Obadiah, And False Loneliness

Alastair Roberts 3:14

Certainly. Well, the idea of the title comes from the book of 1 Kings, which describes the ministry of Elijah. He's a desert prophet challenging the corruption of the idolatrous regime of the Amride King Ahab and his queen Jezebel, and their persecution of the servants of God. Now within his context, he's outside of the institution, he's speaking against its corruption and calling for condemnation of it. He has this um conviction that everyone else has abandoned the truth, that he alone is left. Whereas when the Lord speaks to him at Horeb, he declares that there have been many who have not bowed the knee yet to idols, many who are still faithful. And within the institution, within Ahab's r regime, there is the character of Obadiah, who protects a number of the prophets of the Lord in a way that Elijah would not have been able to do outside of that institution. Now within the context that we have of social media, there is a lot of comment upon different institutions, how they handle certain things, the problematic associations that there might be within institutions, the ways in which certain sins are not dealt with, or maybe not speedily addressed. And it's very easy to form an impression of an institution from w from without. One that maybe does not tally very well with what's happening within. On the other hand, as those within institutions, we find ourselves dealing with issues in our immediate context and maybe being a bit more patient and um taking a bit more time and being a bit more um a bit more forgiving of certain things than we are when we address and consider other institutions from without. And so I want us to think very much about that attention. How do you view institutions in terms of their faithfulness from without and from within? How do we maintain purity from without? How do we from from within? How do we challenge effectively institutions to purity from without without just engaging in a sort of purity spiral that ends up helping no one? How do we encourage holiness and righteousness and honesty in our institutions? How do we maintain trust? All of these questions I think are raised by this. And so whether

Compromise Versus Moral Compromise

Alastair Roberts 5:52

it's the Obadiah complex or the Elijah complex, I want us to think about that sort of tension.

SPEAKER_00 5:58

Yeah, and I think an issue, uh like a related theme would be the nature of compromise. It's compromise. Obviously, we know there's a moral form of compromising that is bad, and you want to avoid it all costs. And you don't want to compromise the truth. But there are other types of compromises that you make in pri in in coalitions of of all sorts, whether that's you're at an educational institution, you're in a political coalition, you are in a denomination, uh, you're on a committee and you're writing a report.

Derek Rishmawy 6:29

Uh just to pull things at random.

SPEAKER_00 6:32

I wouldn't want wish that upon my worst enemies. And but um but you have to figure out how do you there are tactics involved also, even as you have, even if you retain a mor a certain moral compass that you really, really believe in, you have to think about taxes, and then the big question is I think that a lot of the uh the skeptics of what I just said would say, well, just by virtue of playing those games of tactics, have you already obscured your moral? Right.

Derek Rishmawy 6:58

I comes to mind when I was younger, uh the kind of thoughts I had about the compromises I would or wouldn't make as a parent, as a father, the kinds uh we're never gonna just just make the food. Just make it, delete it. It's just gonna be and uh, you know, there's stuff that you you you look at, and that's a silly example, or or you, you know, there's stuff that you thought when I was in seminary, uh, or when I was the the young college director at a church at like 24. I was like, well, this staff me wanted, why doesn't why doesn't you just say this? And it's like, okay. Um, all right, buddy, you know, you you you got you you finished your exegetical paper last Tuesday, your last exegetical paper last Tuesday, and you're gonna run the you're gonna run the thing. Like that's it, there's a there's just an experiential dynamic of of just not knowing if you've never been in that that spot. Um that you know that doesn't excuse everything. Obviously, there's there are just right ways to parent and wrong ways to parent, and there's right ways to pastor and wrong ways to pastor. But the the the realism of what you think is possible and what you think is wise or good um when you're dealing with people, when you're confronting with people face to face as not just pieces of a puzzle or or a problem to be solved, but like actual partners in the work of ministry or partners in the work of an institution or or actually just stakeholders who who you you don't have absolute power over. You you actually just have to work with them to get anything done. Um that just changes the calculus a lot when you start to inhabit those kinds of those kinds of positions, when you get in a position to do anything, right? This is the classic story of you know the politician who comes in and he's gonna be a reformer, and then within five years, somehow like the the the kinds of associations he had to make to get the funding to raise to to raise the support, to get into the job, to get you know, get a motion passed, to uh, you know, uh you know, trade some cows for some pigs, so that his piece of legislation that he really cares about that's really super important has to get through. And then by by five years in, you're like, wow, you're really the man, like you really sold out. It's like, well, did he or or did he get the legislation that he wanted as far as he could? So all of those things are are um I think I think it's a universal experience across various kinds of institutions, right? And compromising thinking about compromising, compromising in marriage, right? You would you ever want to I'm never gonna morally compromise in life? No, you don't want to morally compromise with your wife or your spouse, whatever.

SPEAKER_00 9:35

If you're gonna compromise on something, like you're gonna have to make wish egalitarian, Derek.

Derek Rishmawy 9:40

Yeah, no, and you have yeah, yeah, there's there's uh it whatever, there's comments that some of the biggest patriarchs you know are just dominated. But but um but but the reality is like just to live in an understanding way, even with somebody, you you have to make space, right? And from the outside, it might might look like you're you're getting pushed around. Um and that's not something you often understand until you're actually inside of the choice dynamic. Uh and so that's just uh it's something I've seen is is when somebody doesn't have skin in the game, when dump somebody doesn't have a stake in the institution, um it is easier to throw a bomb that might burn the thing down because it is an abstract it's an abstract um it's an abstract choice, right? You you're often not considering the relational stakes involved or the domino effects of the various uh the various choices that follow the choice that you're advocating until you're actually in the room.

Outsiders, Incentives, And Social Media

Alastair Roberts 10:52

Considering just how many goods are are liable to be lost if you fight battles on every hill. There is also the limitation of your resources. You cannot fight battles on every hill, you cannot die on every hill, you have to choose your battles, you have to recognize when you're faced with superior forces that you need to negotiate in other ways. And the example of parenting, I think, is a good one that if you're going to work with a young child, you cannot just get them to act on your terms. They're a young child and they require negotiation and negotiation of who they are and their um issues, and you also have to compromise with them in a way that shows understanding and grace and are willing to not take the sort of reformation without tarrying for any approach, but to actually work with them step by step and to move them as much as possible towards the good while recognizing that there are a lot of compromises that will need to be made along the way. One of the things I found helpful in thinking about this is Oliver O'Donovan's treatment of something like the law concerning divorce in the Old Testament, where the sense that people have reading Matthew 19 is that that was a bad law. Moses was giving them a law that was less than good, um just resigning himself to the situation. Whereas O'Donovan argues that was the right law for the situation. It was a law that recognized that this is a society that's falling short in a lot of different ways, and you have to negotiate the actual reality. And so the law that is appropriate in that situation is one that will have to wrestle with the breakdown of marriages, that will have to ensure that the damage is minimized and that people are led towards as much as possible a society in which marriage is held in high esteem and marriage bonds are preserved. Now we can't just go straight from A to B. We have to work with the actual situation that we face. Sometimes, for instance, we feel very strongly against something, and yet prudential legislation would have to negotiate it in ways that are far less categorical. I mean, whatever views I might have about AI, I have to think about what is actually going to work, what actually has any chance of passing, what is the sort of policy that we can take towards this that people are likely that is likely to have any traction. And that requires compromises, in part because it requires a recognition of where we are and what possibilities are open to us. And that's a lot of the work of politics, which is necessarily compromised, but not necessarily compromised in a deep moral way.

SPEAKER_00 14:02

Outsiders um to maybe ask a question, you know. So once you inhabit, right, once you inhabit an institution of you know, whether it's marriage, family or a church, right? You know, I often tell my students, like, because I I train the ministry students here at Redeemer and you know, the stakes get raised so high once you think about getting ordained. You know, they already are raised higher once you join a denomination member, and then the stakes are really high once you get ordained because you are really constrained in in real ways. And that constraining has positive, real positive effects, and all it is con it is felt. Um and but um it's easy even like ecclesiastically, right? Like just like generally, even just theologically, to look when you're beginning your theological trajectory, and you of course have all the right uh theological con convictions and opinions, and uh on all these other organizations are flawed in these various ways. But then you've got to figure out well how to if I you know, I'm obviously being sarcastic, but you don't, you don't you're gonna continue to grow and et cetera, et cetera. But you you're I think your demeanor has to change once you join something. Uh and and you can still seek to reform it, but now that reform looks different. But to steel man the case of the outsider, the agitators, the and especially which are it just seems like this phenomenon of the Elijah c outside Elijah complex purist who you know has all these critiques, but doesn't see everything from the inside, it does seem like this is exacerbated by the the online ecosystem.

SPEAKER_05 15:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 15:33

So you can build a whole audience this way on social media. This is a very popular way to build a whole audience, and you're just constantly throwing bombs at at these institutions that you wish were something else. And I just want but but okay, so steel man them though. Um I think the outsiders like we were talking about politics, you know, the reformers who get really excited about somebody taking office who's coming from the outside, they're not in the system, they're gonna come drain the swamp, you know, and then they get in there and they gotta work in the swamp, right?

SPEAKER_03 16:03

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 16:04

Yeah, they gotta go a little swampy. And but it do the is there something construct generative about that dialectic?

Derek Rishmawy 16:11

Yeah, I mean, I I absolutely think that like this is not me saying, Well, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna name some names, but there it there are some outside candidates who I wish would would would would get would would get some would get some uh uh uh attraction, uh uh put it that way in in my state, uh for for all sorts of reasons, because the fact of you know, when you have uh an entrenched unit party that or just single party that then then if you're always gonna be in power and there's never any pressure on the system, you never you have no motivation to compromise, get things done, be better, anything like that, because you're just there, right? Um I I I absolutely think that um once one of those people gets in, you have to work in the swamp, there's a difference between working in the swamp and becoming a swamp creature, right? Like that there's there's there's a difference guy who's like who's got the boots on, he's in there, he's getting dirty, and it's like, okay, oh no, but you're swamp thing. You're actually just that is that is your world, you embrace it, you actually embrace the darkness, you like the backroom deals. Uh like it is in it is an intrinsic good that you're pulling the strings of power in ways that benefit you and all that sort of thing. So I I I absolutely do think that you need people coming in from the outside regularly. And so I do think that I mean Israel's Israel's structure in the Old Testament. You do it, you have the prophets, you have the you have the kings, you have the priests, you have the judges, and then you God would raise up prophets, and you even have companies of prophets. And and that was like a regular, necessary, uh, necessary uh exertion on the system that is always going to tend towards kind of moral entropy, right? Uh and so I I actually think you you need that that general kind of of storing of of non non-initially compromised outsiders who are they have different stakes, right? They have they have other stakes that they are they are um they are trying to bring to bear. I mean, you know, this is this is like cultures, this is societies where there's there's the dominant culture and then there's a subaltern, you know, um uh communities that that kind of change the conversation. So I I absolutely think that that is necessary. Um uh and so it may be the case that you you think about Soren Kierkegaard's critic critique of uh of of Christendom, right? And I can't remember which of his friends he was telling as he was like, he was he was gonna die soon. He's like, I know I was an overcorrective, like I know I was extreme. Like I know I I went too far, but I needed to. There was this low.

unknown 18:40

Yeah.

Derek Rishmawy 18:40

Yeah, it's like I I have to be a negation. I have to do it. Otherwise, it's not gonna be strong enough. I can't, I can't actually be reasonable um in in that way. And you know, it's hard in the middle of history to say, like, well, I'm gonna intentionally be over. I mean, I know, wink wink, I know I'm being extreme, but I have to do this for the sake of the system. Weirdly, in the providence of history, I think sometimes like God has to like have people who um, in a sense, don't get it yet, haven't been on the inside. Just for this for the sake of moving the the moral overton window, um uh or the the systemic overturned window to get anything done.

SPEAKER_00 19:19

So um I think compromise point there that we talk I mentioned earlier is relevant here as well, though. Like because I think about this with the people who are just saying they're pushing the overton window, right? And that might be that there might be a place for that on in certain respects on certain issues at certain times. And but I think they're often naive to how they their their own judgment increasingly gets clouded as they kind of give themselves over to that. Yeah. Uh yeah.

Derek Rishmawy 19:48

No, I mean the uh you said steel man, but I mean the reality is I the the there are there are unfortunately there are perverse incentives to be an outsider uh to build your platform to you know, hey, you know, fund my Patreon while I um while I stick it to the man, etc. etc. And and hey, why don't you draw our growing network of people who are sticking it to the man? And hey, we've got a conference coming up about sticking it to the man. We've got these five speakers alongside us who are also doing great work of sticking to the man. You should support their organizations too. Realize we're also becoming a 501c3 and and and if your your dollars would just like it just that just that's had that happens, right? Um, so I I think there the the problem is there's there's a dishonesty in recognizing that that that happens and and there's an incentive structure to be outside. There's the nice thing though, one other I just addition is um it is it's actually just really fun sometimes uh in the online ecosystem to blow stuff up from the outside and then walk away that you you that you don't actually you're not left holding the bag of any kind of relational uh you know integrity that you you have to you have to hold things together. Sometimes sometimes being put in a position of authority or power where where you uh where you're holding things together. It's kind of like what that uh those those those movies where the where the bad guy has to get away. Yeah, bad bad guy's trying to get away, and the cop's there, and he's he's like gonna chase him. Uh but he's like, oh, uh here, let me let me blow up this part of the bridge. And so Superman has to go, you have to choose between chasing me or or or saving saving the people on the bridge. There's there's almost something like that when it comes to institutions where you're like, okay, I I can deal with the outside critiques, but oftentimes to even do that, I I would have to neglect a lot of the relational caregiving and and and binding together of communities that are the work of oftentimes institutional insiders.

Beeson Divinity Full Tuition Scholarships

Derek Rishmawy 21:51

And now for a quick word from one of our sponsors. Beson Divinity School is an interdenominational evangelical seminary on the campus of Sanford University in Burning. Birmingham, Alabama. I've been there. It is actually a lovely campus. Led by world-renowned faculty, Beeson forms students in person in a kind of a community-oriented model of theological education. And they have top-ranked scholars who engage their students at kind of very small class sizes. It's a warm environment. And now, thanks to a generous gift, Beeson is actually offering new full tuition scholarships for the 2025-2026 incoming class for their flagship degree, the Master of Divinity. So this kind of makes the whole thing more affordable than it's ever been. Now these scholarships cover the cost of tuition for and fees for three years, which is the average time it takes to finish the MDiv. And I'll be honest and say I wish I had known about this or had an opportunity to look at this one when I was heading to seminary. So if you're interested, you can apply and learn more information at BsonDivinity.com.

SPEAKER_03 22:57

Alistair, you've been silent for a while. This was your this was your this this whole conversation is your fault.

Reform Without Burning It Down

SPEAKER_03 23:02

Say something.

Alastair Roberts 23:03

I think there are a number of things I want to add at this point. First of all, um I think it was James made the point of um other groups with ends of their own that are distinct. This I think is really important for things like um the practice of academia, the practice of pastors, the practice of um journalists, for instance, that there are institutions within a free society that there are frustrations to those who are just pursuing institution who are within institutions in ways that could easily end up being reduced to the ends of serving the interest of the institution itself rather than some greater end beyond that of the common good, of truth, whatever it is. And so I think when we uh have those institutions that we refuse to just submit to the ends of institutional politics or more general uh politics and we pursue in ways that are quite uh politically inexpedient, truth, faithful reporting, these sorts of things, that can be quite conducive to uh the healthful um form of communities and institutions. It can encourage reform. And for instance, if you're engaged in the work of theology, as we are within this podcast, we're always engaged in this sort of negotiation between thinking seriously about theological questions and recognizing that I'm not going to reform my church overnight. And if I were to try to, I'd destroy it. And so we're negotiating between these deep theological principles that we hold, the idea that we might the ideas that we might have about optimal practice of Christian worship, and the fact that we have a form of worship that we find quite suboptimal within our churches, or we have a particular understanding of the celebration of the sacraments that differs from our church. Are you going to impose your ideology upon the church and expect that they reform and lose a lot of the actual communion of the church for the sake of a a doctrine that is a lot less hospitable? Or are you going to actually just tarry with people in love and work towards what you can and to improve things? And I think there's a tendency again with the internet to find ourselves dislodged from contexts that give us this sort of duty of care and concern and negotiation and good compromise and puts us all in the position of the isolated Elijah who has no tethers, who has no bonds, who has no direct responsibilities that might constrain him. Whereas Obadiah does. If Obadiah causes too much trouble, the hundreds of prophets of the Lord that he's protecting are going to die. And so he needs to operate somehow within the system in a way that's not rocking too many boats, but which is nonetheless faithful. And so I think our task often is to find some way to hold together our deep principles and our theological thinking without making that an ideological thing that untethers us from the communities of concern and loyalty that we belong to, while also enabling us to recognize when the time has come for us to get out, when the time has come that a compromise would take us over a line. For instance, one of the decisions that you'll have to make in choosing it in being in a church is at what point is this really jeopardizing your children's spiritual health? Now, you might be able to cope in that context, having all sorts of things to preserve your spiritual health, a sort of mask to put on with various other communities that protect you. But if you're raising your kids within that context, you have different sorts of decisions to make. So I think it might be helpful to consider this relative to the sorts of communities that we find ourselves in as churches. So many of the Elijas have ended up untethered from church community. And as a result, they are actively compromising. And they're actively compromising on one of the most essential duties of Christian life, which is not forsaking meeting together, maintaining bonds of love and recognition with fellow Christians, and seeking to build each other up in a way that is conducive to the health of the church and that will not rip it apart and cause dissension and fra and fracture needlessly. There are ways that we can be peacemakers and yet do that in compromise situations and yet remain pure and peaceful. And that is the challenge that we need to negotiate. When do we take the stop step of actually breaking with something?

Derek Rishmawy 28:15

Yeah, I mean I think about Calvin and the and the and the wheat and the tares, probably Augustine too, but um Calvin and the Anabaptists. And the Bible, yeah. Jesus. I I could quote Jesus

Protestant Disruption And Purity Spirals

Derek Rishmawy 28:25

there. Um but but uh that that element of of of the wheat and the tares and and letting them grow up together and and and if you are if you keep if if there's no church that's good enough, there's there's no if there's commun no community, no, no institution, and you have to go off and become you know a style up on a up on a up on a pillar uh because the world has become too unclean. There is this level of of an over-realized like an over-realized eschatology of like the purity of any church, any institution, any anybody that you join to do any good. Um and so just being aware of that dynamic, it is is just so widespread. But unfortunately, you know, the the this is uh whatever the Protestant critique of the monks, or at least the stylites, maybe some monks, but you know, when you when you get so when you become so concerned with that kind of purity that it it neglects love of neighbor, when you can actually draw near to your neighbor in relations, uh in in in the kinds of community that have the sorts of impure impure, imperfect, whatever people who uh that then you've gone too far. You know, um there I mean, put it this way. Um blast zones are pure, right? There's there's and everything's been every the the the fire the fires have the fires have come through and consumed everything that's impure and there's nothing left. Um and sometimes sometimes our our our passions can burn like that, but if if if you've gone so far that you don't have that kind of community, or you can't imagine one, um, or you'd rather see the whole thing burned to the ground. Um now I know the reply to some of that is there's some institutions that get so corrupt and so evil and so wicked that yeah, burn them to the ground. I okay, I I get that. Um and and but for your average, I guess your average one, where you've got your mix, you've got your wheat and your tares, it is rare to find an uh an only tear, an only an only an only chaff um kind of institution.

SPEAKER_00 30:37

Well, I so I think being a classical Protestant is so difficult. Um because we have both poles here. We have like continuing where a reform movement, not a a revolution, uh and but also not a repristination. And you you uh try to avoid Donatism or what you could even call, I've heard someone call it ecclesiological uh Pelagianism, right? Where you've got to be in the pure church and it's kind of like tethered to your salvation. So we we've got that kind of built-in resistance, and at the same time, we are a prophetic movement, right? Uh uh working from the inside at the at our origins, but increasingly kind of uh taking on that demeanor of reform from the, you know, in our own sense of what is inside, but also, I mean, I do pray, even as a Protestant, that eventually Rome would be reformed, right? I mean, I I'm not losing that hope. And so this you kind of live in this paradoxical tension. And I think our stories shape us a lot. This I think this plays out in politics. You know, the mythos of your nation does set certain trajectories. You know, America is a nation of freedom. Whatever, whatever else you want to value, you gotta value freedom, you know? And so, and and it's part of our story. And I, but I also think ecclesiologically, theologically, this plays out too in being Protestant. Like we've got everybody thinks they're having their Martin Luther moment at Worms, you know, like uh here I stand, I could do no other. And it's like, yeah, but not every issue is justification by faith alone and you know, sola scriptura, you know. Um uh and and a lot of things that you're actually defending under that banner, uh, I don't think are Christian, you know. Um, but so there's the Martin Luther, you also have in the Presbyterian orbit, right? Machin's warrior children, right? Like, you know, uh people who are and we do the the history Rome was right on this critique, right? That it does we're setting up a trajectory of of a continual splintering, and I think we've got to figure out how to redress that internally. I think it's possible to, but it is a liability of our situation. And the other thing I was just thinking with this is one of my favorite uh comment uh kind of um uh theorists of uh theological uh approach, theological hermeneutics, theological method, is uh is a is a Catholic named Cardinal Avery Dulles, and he has this great book on the Catholicity of the church, and he's he's pulling from Paul Tillich, who's a weirdo Protestant who I don't necessarily like, but I've like Man, a Catholic quoting a liberal Protestant.

Derek Rishmawy 33:01

Where are we going with this, James? But what Tillick Where are we going with this, James?

SPEAKER_00 33:05

What Tillich coined, and then Dulles adopted, and then I'm stealing for myself, is there is a generative tension between the Catholic principles and the Protestant principle, of the Catholic principle of like institutional, organic continuity, historical continuity, and then the Protestant of like disruption. The spirit can break in, and and and and I think it's hard to live in that tension because the the pull is to one or the other, and I think it's related to this. And I think the outside agitator is it makes sense to me that this is maybe more endemic among Protestants, right? We have these these people, it's not just the online problem, it's also I think part of our DNA. But the other thing I was gonna say about the online thing uh is I think the other thing that the online thing does makes this also messy is you know, you are when you're making this, you're building up this audience, you're making these comments online, it's both disembodied, it's untethered from an actual community that you are stewarding careful over and caring for, and therefore that will lead you to also credential judgments. That's one part, it's not it's not only disembodied, but also it gives you the this sense of being omnipresent. And so you feel like you have a responsibility to speak about everything, right? And so these guys will pull you in, these online figures, these Elijah's online. Why aren't you speaking about this? It's like, dude, I I can only speak about I can't speak about everything all the time. And I think that's where also the social media dynamic messes up with us.

Private Correction Versus Public Performance

Derek Rishmawy 34:29

What do you want? I'm in Canada. Um, no, but but I mean, literally, like in the in you know, a hundred years ago, uh in a hundred years ago, what was happening uh across even in your known denomination, you're like, man, I didn't hear about that. I didn't hear that about that until General Assembly. Even if then, if we had one. Um, that that is a real thing. The other thing is the illusion of um different kind that there are different kinds of activity, different kinds of of movement. Um online dynamics prioritize public dramatized speech that is almost always performed in front of everybody, whether or not it's actually effective. Uh, whereas oftentimes, you know, when you're in institutions, oftentimes some of the most some of the most aggressive speech that happens, some of the most aggressive professic prophetic speech that can happen might happen in a phone call where you're calling somebody, dude, what are you what are you doing? Are you crazy? And say, why are you so silent? I'm I'm not silent, I'm just not tweeting it. I am I am I am chewing whoever it is out uh like in private, which is how oftentimes confrontations are most effective because they're actual um personalized confrontations between one soul and another, uh, which is often how Jesus has us do things, uh and not not public performances to potentially boost my boost my platform in front of a watching world on the back of the person that I'm I'm criticizing. Now, obviously, public sins call for public speech, public, public, you know, but public sin calls for full call for public correction. But sometimes the dynamic shifts when you privately correct and then and a person publicly repents. Sometimes that's the better move. Oftentimes you're just like, hey, you know what? I could chew you out and I would I would be saying the truth publicly. And this is not whatever. But it could be I could call you and you might actually just I might call you behind the scenes, uh, and then it turns out that you you see your sin and then you publicly repent. And that's actually just better. It's better for the institution, it's better for everybody involved. But you can't, it's not something you can point to. Hey, I had that private conversation, let me show it to you, you know. So this these are some of the institutional dynamics that um, you know, insider-outsider perspective oftentimes uh there's there's an optical, um, there's a difference there.

Alastair Roberts 36:56

Um I think may puts us all in the position of being public persons. I think James getting at some of this, as were you, Derek, that we are all expected to speak on all these sorts of issues that are simply we simply lack knowledge and competence to speak to. We do not know the situation on the ground, and yet we're expected to arrive at a judgment because we have been cast as public persons because social media is now public, the public space. And that creates a situation that is anti-subsidiarity, anti-dealing with things at the level where which is closest to the level where they can be dealt with effectively and in a way that's near to the ground, that sees the issues and can address them appropriately. What we have is people who are viewing from a distance casting judgment because they are expected to do so. And that makes a sort of Elijah-like ministry one that is primarily operating with very weak optics that has not often engaged in deep investigation. Sometimes it has, but often it is not, or at least it's um its traction arises from lots of people commenting who do not have deep knowledge of the actual issues on the ground. And I think one of the challenges here is how can we create a situation where these two ministries, Elijah is a good guy, he's appointed a prophet. He's a hero. He's my guy.

SPEAKER_05 38:34

I love Elijah.

Alastair Roberts 38:36

And we do not we should not dismiss what he's doing, even though he is corrected by God. Yet at the same time, Obadiah is also described as a faithful man. What does it look like when Elijah and

Trust Between Activists And Insiders

Alastair Roberts 38:49

Obadiah recognize each other as being on the same team and manage their approach accordingly? That is, it seems to me, is the real question.

SPEAKER_00 38:59

I think trust is a big part of this. I mean, I I think that because there can be mutual, there can be different vocations, you know, and and you can even have different vocations at different times of your institutional placement. Um and uh and and I just think like one of the things that gets really irritating about how this plays out online, it's a bunch of different types of figures. It's not just one. I I think the audience, our audience might think they're just thinking about this one person.

Derek Rishmawy 39:22

We're not like there are all across the spectrum, all we had a list of 15 that we discussed before.

SPEAKER_00 39:28

But what's frustrating is I like for instance, I when I tried to steel man earlier because I really believe there's a steel man case to be made for these kind of outside reformists, right? And I would call them maybe activists, and they they use a hammer, they they're a little bit more blunt, direct, to the point there's a place for that, and there's a place for the insider who's trying to reform from within, carry forward. And I think where we all feel the frustration is when they can't re they don't they don't trust each other and they don't show public respect for each other. And it's just they are each side of that dynamic can constantly like nitpick and undermine the work of the other. And then it becomes you know, just a cycle where they keep doing it to each other, and and both I think both sides lose from that dynamic.

Derek Rishmawy 40:11

It's like it's like the journalist, journalist politician dynamic of like the the the the journalist who's my job is report, expose, etc. etc. And the politician who's like, hey, I'm I'm trying to get I almost had this. I almost had this, and then you blew it up with that story, and now this person is offended and and I can't get them back to the table, et cetera, et cetera.

SPEAKER_00 40:30

And um or the uncovered detective who's been working with the mafia for 20 years, you blew my story.

Derek Rishmawy 40:36

That that's a whole thing. Yeah, right. So um uh and I again I this is where I have to appeal to pro I I I have to think providentially. Um I think there needs to be more mutual understanding, grace, and and personally there there needs to be a lack of uh oh and it's hard. It's hard. It's hard because you you need some people who are suspicious, who pull on threads and uncover stuff, right? You can think about you know sex abuse scandals and and all that. Like it just just necessary. There's stuff that's been covered up by insiders and institutions. It absolutely needs to get uh laid bare. Um, and so it you know, in the providence of God, the I I have to think that he he put both Obadiah and Elijah in the scripture for us to reflect on both. Because there are some people who need to reflect on the fact that there is an Obadiah there. And there's some people that need to reflect on the fact that like you need Elijah from the outside calling calling it down. And honestly, the the the the charge is, I mean, the Obadiah is I'm sure him hearing Elijah's preaching um was important for him to remember the the pure call of God, the fidelity to the covenant, all that like he probably needed to hear that uh even as he was working um in the government as he was, and and so so that was there. Um and Elijah's not always gonna know what's going on secretly because here's the thing, if he told it's like, hey Elijah, don't worry about this, you know, that that you know, loose lips, loose lips stink ships when it comes to hiding prophets in caves. There's there's certain things that there are probably just gonna have to be some misunderstandings in history, or at the last day, there's gonna be vindications and resurrections, and there are gonna be people who actually recognize each other in the kingdom of God as having been mutually working towards the same end from different ways, even though in this life they didn't know it. Uh, and that's kind of one of those things where like we live in history and there are gonna be always gonna be unresolved tensions that God will providentially resolve at the eschaton, and that's it. Um I think it's it's it's sometimes all we can do is actually just be aware that this dynamic is at work and and broadly factored in, even if in the moment I it that may be the case, but in the moment I may still be called to speak truth as I see it, or in the moment I may still be called to try and do my best to work behind the scenes to get this this uh this movement done.

Suspicion, Transparency, And Coalition Work

Alastair Roberts 43:07

I do think an important part of this is the difference between a sort of systemic suspicion, which you often see within the sort of Elijah complex. It's a radical distrust of institutions, a sense that they are entirely corrupt. And you see this in a lot of the way that politicians are represented and government. And when you know people within these institutions, you just know it's a lot more complicated than that. It's seldom straightforwardly corrupt. There are people making difficult decisions and negotiating things. And the very best situation is when there is someone who will ask the really tough questions, who is not caught by the incentives that are perverse within the institution, that isn't trapped within the structure and the higher. Hierarchy that would prevent speaking out, for instance, or whistleblowing. And that person is able to, on the one hand, be attentive to the dynamics that are not entirely corrupt, recognize some of the perverse incentives, and recognize some of the difficult decisions and compromises that are being made. And be able to work with people who are within without just being in a position where they want to burn the whole thing down, where they're not driven by radical suspicion or hostility to institutions, but they are seeking the best of for the institutions, where there are people who are not simply opposed to everything that's going on in government, but actually recognize the difficulty of the decisions that face government and what it would look like to believe the best and yet to be prepared to ask the really tough questions that would unearth corruption and evil. And that negotiation, it seems to me, is very difficult to have when everything tends to polarize into pro-institutional or anti-institutional or suspicion or just complete naive belief in various parties. And this, it seems to me, is exhibited on both sides. Both sides of these sorts of debates have their own institutions. And both sides can be very naive about their own institutions and the compromises that are being made, and aren't at least auditing them on those fronts. And then both sides can be incredibly suspicious and hostile to the compromises that are being made on other sides without actually considering, okay, what's new what's being negotiated here? What goods are are people trying to preserve? And what does a non-cynical perspective upon this look like? Are there parties within this camp that we could find a goodwill coalition with? Is there some way we can engage with some parties who want to reform things from within? All of those sorts of questions, it seems to me, are the ones that we should initially be, at the very least, initially being be pursuing. And often that's the way that reform reform occurs. And it doesn't involve burning everything down, but it does involve a concern for purity, a concern for transparency, all these sorts of things.

unknown 46:32

Yeah.

Courage, Misunderstanding, And Closing

SPEAKER_00 46:33

Yeah, I think another another angle, a motif that I was thinking about, besides just the purity motif, is also the motif of courage. And oftentimes in these debates, right, there's a very narrow conception of what courage looks like. And I do think outside speech can be courageous. But if that's your only mode and you're always outside and you're just lobbing bombs on the other, even if that other is an institution you care about and you kind of align with in certain respects, that can be can, you know, that can be presented as a type of I'm the courageous one. And oftentimes, like what you're saying, Alistair, from the there's a lot of different forms of courage that are being performed from the inside that is unseen. And so when you're working for reform from inside and you're having to work with people and you're making pretty bold statements from what that never get the light of day, but you're trying to keep it in-house, and it could ruin your career, and it could harm your friendship, and it can make your life really miserable at your institution. Like that is also a form of courage that doesn't get a lot of play.

Derek Rishmawy 47:38

And I think that's another factor that uh courage to be misunderstood. Um guys, there's so much more we could keep going here. Once you start talking about purity and and I mean, there's a whole there's a whole element of like sanctification and holiness and reconsecration and the and the and the and the and the and the making whole of of things that have been pulled apart. And we would do that, but um, we probably have to land the plane here. So um, guys, thank you for this conversation. Alistair, thanks for setting it up, James. Thank you for your contributions. And if you have stuck around this far, thank you for listening. Uh please, if you found this helpful in any ways, wait or wait or review this on iTunes, uh, Spotify, share the episode, join the Patreon, join join the Neo Orthodoxy. Um, but for now, this has been Near Fidelity.