Written by T. M. Suffield |
Monday, November 1, 2021
It is easier—more comfortable, less effort, and less vulnerable—to engage with church content on social media platforms than to do so in person would be. While using the platforms to their upmost could be a helpful step into church for many—and enough so that I think it’s worth engaging in some fashion—the conversion will be hard, and harder the more you’ve suggested what you’re doing online is church. Also, plenty of people will feel the draw the other way, to disengage from meeting together and to use the online ‘alternatives’ instead.

This article in the New York Times describes two tools that Facebook are developing for churches. Firstly, a subscription service, “where users pay, for example, $9.99 per month and receive exclusive content, like messages from the bishop” and secondly a prayer service “where members of some Facebook groups can post prayer requests and others can respond.”
As my friend Duncan put it to me:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptise them and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. But make sure to put the really good teaching behind a paywall.
Friends, Scientology is not our model. The fact that senior leaders of a number of churches didn’t immediately smell a rat means something’s gone wrong with their noses.
I won’t speculate what their problems may be, but this is a terrible idea. So terrible it surely only needs to be laughed at. What we offer we offer for free. Yes, we ask for people’s money, that’s how all churches exist and continue to run, but these are generous offerings in response to what they received from God.
Or in the crassest terms, if you really want an extra £10 a month from someone, teach them the really good stuff. God might inspire them to want to give it to you.
Praying to commercial gods
I’m more concerned about the prayer tool, because it sounds like something we might conceivably use. But why are Facebook doing this? After all, Facebook is not our friend. People who used to work there have been surprisingly candid about their intent to ‘exploit a vulnerability in human psychology’.1 The old adage that if it’s free you’re the product rings true. Facebook are an advertising company, which they make no bones about.
I am concerned that if I input my prayer request I will be bombarded with adverts on their platforms for services which will fix my problem in some fashion. I may even be deceived into thinking this is a message from the Lord. Can the Almighty move an advertising algorithm to my benefit? Yes. But that doesn’t mean he did.
Imagine the most painful situation. A couple struggling with the deep feelings of shame and the ongoing heartache of infertility summon up the courage to input their prayers online. Adverts from fertility clinics, potentially offering all manner of unethical options, abound. At best this is confusing, most likely asking for prayer seems to have deepened their pain.
Even in a more run-of-the-mill situation, do I want an advertising company knowing my deepest thoughts? Their business is structured around knowing as much as they can about me in order to sell me things.
Or, if people are aware of this, do we want them to be afraid to ask for prayer because of how Facebook might use it?
It’s quite possible that many of the tools they’re developing will be useful to gospel ministry. Have a look at my previous post to for some initial thoughts about tools in ministry, and how to approach those questions.
Connection-makers
Facebook’s COO, Sheryl Sandberg is quoted as saying “Faith organizations and social media are a natural fit because fundamentally both are about connection.”
Are they? It’s the sort of thing that sounds very reasonable in an executive’s mouth, but let’s pause to hear the nonsense. Is Christianity fundamentally about connection? Is church? It sounds like it could be true enough for us to nod along, but it’s not actually true. It’s truth-adjacent, if you will. It isn’t wrong, but it’s not what the message of the crucified carpenter king is about at all.
“I died on the cross because I really want you all to love each other and get connected.”
Not Jesus, thank goodness
Let’s not accept the premise. Are we given ‘connection’ with God by Jesus work on our behalf? I suppose, but much better I’m given sonship, friendship, and a table richly laden. I’m adopted, not simply connected. By the Emperor of the cosmos, the Potentate of Time. As the meme goes, “you and I are not the same.”
A Centre of Gravity
Here perhaps we reach for a bigger lesson. Is there nothing that cannot be online? Is there nothing that cannot be subsumed under totalising social platforms? Sometimes it feels like there isn’t anything left. But it’s a lie. Most of what makes life good, from the Lord’s table to gathering around my table, is not online.
I appreciate that there will be some who would beg to differ, and that they have often been driven to online places that understand them from deep and lasting hurt. I can only sympathise and gently suggest that while I’m sure those spaces have been very helpful, there is better promised.
Read More

Salvation through the Catholic faith is not possible without Mary. Mark Miraville, a leading advocate of Marian theology, states, “It is in the light of Mary’s unique and intimate cooperation with the Redeemer, both at the incarnation…and at the work of redemption at Calvary…that the Church has invoked Mary under the title “Coredemptrix.”

Have you ever been in the position of trying to educate someone on what their particular religion believes and practices? As a teacher of comparative religions for over thirty years, I’ve been confronted with that situation many times. It happens often with Catholics, especially on the topic of Mary.
Today, Mary, the mother of Jesus , is increasingly being given a prominence in Roman Catholicism which finds little or no support in the Bible. When a contrast is made between the biblical Mary and the Mary of Roman Catholic tradition, the result is two very different portraits of Mary. The Roman Catholic portrayal quite often obscures Christ. In many respects, the Mary of Rome is portrayed as a female parallel to Jesus.
For example, consider the following Catholic teachings: Jesus was born without sin; Mary was conceived without original sin. Jesus was sinless; Mary lived a sinless life. Jesus ascended to heaven following His resurrection; Mary was bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life. Jesus is a Mediator; Mary is Mediatrix. Jesus is a redeemer; Mary is co-redeemer. Jesus is the King; Mary is the queen of heaven.(1)
These things are true with regard to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about Mary. And while each one deserves much more space than is available in this article, we will concern ourselves here only with Catholicism’s teaching that Mary was sinless along with the practice of praying to her. See here for more information on other points about Mary: https://arcapologetics.org/will-the-real-mary-please-stand-up/(2)
MARY WAS A SINNER
It has been my experience over the years that some Catholics do not understand the “immaculate conception” of Mary. Some have believed that this refers to Mary being impregnated by the Holy Spirit without carnal sex so she could give birth to Jesus. Somehow they have missed that this doctrine is not referring to Jesus’ conception, but rather the conception of Mary herself. However, folk Catholicism is not official Catholicism. The official position is that Mary, in her immaculate conception, was preserved from original sin. As such, she was miraculously preserved from the pollution of sin inherited from Adam. In both body and soul, she is believed by Catholics to be holy, stainless, spotless, undefiled, pure and innocent in every way. In his papal Bull Ineffabilis of 1854, Pope Pius IX defined Mary’s immaculate conception as follows:
[A]ccordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (3)
This is not a suggestion by the Pope, rather an edict, something to be obeyed by all Catholics. How serious is it to reject this? The same Pope said, “Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid–to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”(4)
Virtually, all catechisms of the Catholic Church teach the sinless perfection of Mary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, affirms the same. On page 252, paragraph 966, it says,” Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory,…”(5) Not only does the Roman Catholic Church teach she was without sin, it teaches she never died.
TO PRAY OR NOT TO PRAY TO MARY
It is logical for Catholics to make a connection between Mary’s sinless human nature and praying to her. All Catholics are not necessarily in agreement on all things including praying to Mary. However, we should not kid ourselves about language. Some say they don’t pray to Mary, but they ask Mary to pray for them either to the Father or to the Son. Whether it is asking Mary or the saints in heaven to pray for them, it is still using words that are in fact the same as praying. Asking, beseeching, urging, appealing, petitioning, communing with, talking to, etc., are all used as synonyms for praying.
Although some do not want to admit they are praying to Mary, the Catholic Church openly endorses praying to Mary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, says, “Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, …We can pray with her and to her. The Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.”(6)
Also, consider the following from the third novena of another Catholic source: “O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.”(7)
RESPONSE
The prayer above confirms what the Catholic Church teaches in regard Mary being sinless and the issue of praying to her. In reference to the latter, we encounter the issue of praying to the dead. There is no Old or New Testament approval of this. Instead, the Bible looks upon this as a pagan practice and equivalent to necromancy (conjuring of the spirits of the dead) which is condemned in Deuteronomy 18: 10-13.
Addressing Mary as ‘the dispenser of all gifts’ is to mean that no salvific benefit can come to us without her mediation. The St. Peter Catechism of the Catholic Church asks, “Did God will to make our redemption and all its consequences depend upon the free consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary?” The Catechism answers, “God willed that our redemption and all its consequences should depend on the free consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”(8)
Salvation through the Catholic faith is not possible without Mary. Mark Miraville, a leading advocate of Marian theology, states, “It is in the light of Mary’s unique and intimate cooperation with the Redeemer, both at the incarnation…and at the work of redemption at Calvary…that the Church has invoked Mary under the title “Coredemptrix.”(9) Also, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order: for by God, it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”(10)
Granting Mary or any of the saints such a prominent position in salvation means that our Lord has other competitors for His one and only advocacy for us. Having others mediating between Him and mankind is contrary to biblical theology. Scripture says, “There is only one mediator between God and man, and that is the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). It is so because He, not Mary, angels, or saints, is qualified as our only mediator and it is to Him and Him only that we have access to our heavenly Father for salvation.  As Luke says in Acts 4:12, “ And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men[a] by which we must be saved.”
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. A Teaching Elder in the PCA, he has pastored churches in Alabama and South Carolina.

Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), 55.
Will the Real Mary Please Stand Up, Clete Hux, https://arcapologetics.org/will-the-real-mary-please-stand-up/
James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 37.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), 252.
, p. 644
https://sacredheartparish.net/novena-prayers-to-our-mother-of-perpetual-help/
Peter Catechism (Liverpool: Print Organization, 1972), question 319.
Mark Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993), XV.
Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper (1894).

Related Posts:

Cultured despisers want nothing less than a reinvention of Christian categories to serve the ends of sexual liberation…the problem is not with discussing sexuality, but only the vision of sexuality and gender roles patterned in Scripture.
 
Inspired by the legacy of Tim Keller, the Gospel Coalition recently announced the creation of the Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics. The goal of the Center is to facilitate a new missionary encounter with Post-Christendom by combining cultural critique and theological depth. The tenor of the Center is one of hope: while secularization and polarization have weakened the Church, there is an opportunity to represent the Christian faith in a world desperate for meaning. In other words, demonstrating the beauty and goodness of true Christian beliefs will save the West.
By God’s grace, we can close the back door and stem the tide of dechurching. We can open the front door so skeptics will enter the foyer on the path to saving faith. Once equipped, we can depart together through the front door to show unbelievers the truth, goodness, and beauty of the gospel as the only hope that fulfills our deepest longings.
This week, the Keller Center faced its first trial when it released a now-deleted article promoting Josh Butler’s book on Christian sexual ethics. I want to suggest that the current backlash against Butler is instructive in how cultural apologetics, ignorant of the dynamics of the “negative world,” are destined to become impotent.
First, does Butler’s article, when shorn of its admittedly crude language, convey anything objectionable in substance about the marriage relationship? The central claim is that “Sex is an icon of Christ and the church.” By “icon,” he means that the sexual act itself points to something beyond it, which is the union of Christ and the church. Ephesians 5:31-32 certainly states this about marriage, though Butler’s specificity about the sexual act itself was awkward. Butler turns to the categories of giving and receiving to describe the act and how it parallels Christ’s relationship with the Church. The heart of sex is communication and the reception of two selves, and the fruit of this union is generative, which is at the root of Jesus’ teaching on marriage. When he is questioned about divorce (Matt 19, Mark 10) he quotes from both Genesis 1 and 2, reiterating the generative and unitive goods of the institution.
The point is this: One may take issue with Butler’s presentation—his graphic lingering on the sex act itself—but fundamentally, Butler is not conceptually aberrant in noting the patterns of male initiation and female reception in marriage reflects Christ’s relationship with the Church. So while Butler’s rhetoric might be unfortunate, he is not heretical on that point.
However, the backlash against Butler has been not just to take issue with his rhetoric, but to malign his theology as not only incorrect but dangerous and harmful. In Dennae Pierre’s retraction, she labels his theology as male-centric, enforcing a harmful gender dynamic. Others will say Butler’s thought creates the conditions for sexual harm and “harms women.” None of these things are actually true of Butler’s writing but they are indicative that Butler is being singled out as a scapegoat for the abuses of complementarian theology.
Consequently, when pressured by activists to pull his endorsement, Rich Villodas, issued a retraction, in under 24 hours, agreeing with these points. Villodas says, “Josh’s exegesis and commentary of Ephesians 5 is not just problematic, it’s dangerous.” What makes Villodas’ retraction instructive for demonstrating the dynamics of the negative world is that Villodas and Butler share virtually identical positions on sex. Villodas has also written a book on cultural apologetics (The Deeply Formed Life), in which he has a chapter on sex. There he describes sex, among other things, as a sacrament: “lovemaking in and outside the bedroom is a revelation. What does it reveal? Well, without overstating it, it reveals God. It is sacramental. Our lovemaking is to manifest our union with each other and, in so doing, manifest God’s union with the world.” (DFL, p.168). In fact, the sexual act for Villodas is not just any type of sacrament, it is eucharistic! Here I quote him at length:
Read More
Related Posts: