Most people associate the words "Catechism," "Dogma," and "Excommunication" with the Catholic Church, and there are some excellent historical reasons for this.
The Protestant Reformation, which started on October 31st, 1517 was in large part a (long overdue) reaction to the abuse of power by the Roman Catholic Church and these three concepts were widely perceived among the Reformers as devices that were, on the one hand, unsupported by Scripture and on the other hand, were making it far too easy for the Catholic clergy to abuse their power.
Because of this, the Protestant churches which emerged in Europe and later in other parts of the world largely did away with these things, and today, the results, for better and for worse, are all too evident for all to see.
I want to go through these three concepts one by one, and talk a little but about how each one applies to the fourth thing mentioned in the title of this blog, and that's Tucker Carlson.
First, Catechism.
The dictionary defines this word thusly;
catechism [kat-i-kiz-uhm]
noun
1. Ecclesiastical,
a. an elementary book containing a summary of the principles of the Christian religion, especially as maintained by a particular church, in the form of questions and answers.
b. the contents of such a book.
2. a similar book of instruction in other subjects.
3. a series of formal questions put, as to political candidates, to bring out their views.
4. catechetical instruction.
With all due respect to the dictionary's thoroughness, most people think of the word "catechism" to mean essentially the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church. Some Mainline Protestant denominations have a catechism, but they usually don't call it that. The Anglicans, for instance, have a "book of common prayer" which is very comparable to the Catholic catechism.
Be that as it may, everyone who attends a Catholic church receives a tremendous amount of instruction (especially if they're a child being raised by parents who regularly attend Mass) in the "catechism" so that they will know what it means to be a Catholic and just as importantly, what it means NOT to be a Catholic.
So, what does that entail? To answer that question, we need to take a look at the next term, "dogma."
The dictionary defines this term thusly;
dogma [dawg-muh]
noun
1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: philosophy, doctrine
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church.
Synonyms: law, canon, tenet
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.
Synonyms: certainty, conviction
So, the "catechism" is the canonized list of "dogma" that an organization, movement, etc. holds to.
Once again, this term is mostly used when talking about the Catholic Church, although it also gets used quite a bit in reference to politics.
What does all this have to do with Tucker Carlson?
EVERYTHING!
Tucker has been in the news a lot lately because he spoke at the funeral of Charlie Kirk in Arizona on Sunday and told a "story" about a bunch of wicked, evil, corrupt Jewish people "sitting around eating hummus" and plotting to murder Jesus Christ in order to stop the spread of His message. It was very obvious that Tucker was making a comparison to that situation and his ludicrously absurd theory that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk because Charlie was starting to say some unflattering things about Israel, after years of being an ardent supporter of the Jewish State.
This follows an interview Tucker did a few months ago with Texas Senator Tes Cruz. Cruz said during the interview his support for Israel derived partially from his Christian faith, and Tucker responded with his trademark faux bewilderment, mixed with some really ugly expressions of scorn and contempt, asking Cruz to explain what he'd just said Biblically. Cruz badly flubbed his response, which was embarrassing for him and infuriating for millions of Christian supporters of Israel who would have loved to have watched Cruz give a coherent defense for Christian support for Israel.
Now at this point, I have to make a little side note, and I'll put it in the form of a question.
What IS the Biblical answer to Tucker Carlson's question to Ted Cruz about why Christians should support Israel?
Do you know? Can you open your Bible and find the passages that are most relevant to this discussion Has anyone ever taught or explained this material to you?
In other words, have you been "catechized"? Are you familiar with the "dogma" in regards to this issue?
Are you starting to see where I'm going with all this?
Back to Tucker Carlson, people who know him and know his family say that his father was a great friend of Israel and had many Jewish friends. It is very likely that he has, at some point, asked sincere questions about why Christians should support Israel from some very serious people.
There are therefore two possibilities.
Either he never got a good explanation from anyone, which is possible, but unlikely, or he DID get a good explanation and he rejected it, which I think is much more likely.
That brings us to the third term on my list, "excommunication."
Excommunication was (and still is) an official dogmatic rite of the Catholic Church and it was specifically abolished by the Reformation along with indulgences, Papal infallibility, etc. and I have long thought that this was a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Unlike some of that other nonsense, I think Excommunication absolutely IS not only supported but MANDATED by Scripture (specifically and most forcefully in I Corinthians chapter 5) and the result of its not being retained by the Reformation has been absolutely catastrophic. We can start with the fact that there are over 30,000 recognized Protestant denominations, which is bad enough. But then there's the fact that many of these denominations teach things that are mutually exclusive to what other "Protestant" denominations teach. I'm not talking about small issues either.
Words mean things, and the more specific their meaning is, the more useful they are, and the opposite is also true.
The word "Protestant" almost doesn't even mean anything anymore, because we've got a situation where there's no King and "everyone does what's right in their own eyes."
Some might say that the terms "Mainline" and "Evangelical" are somewhat helpful in this context, but leaving that aside, let's focus on the Evangelicals, because that's what Charlie Kirk called himself and that's what most of the people who came to his memorial service in Arizona would call themselves too, including Tucker Carlson.
Charlie Kirk was a fearless advocate for Israel, and he was very clear about his reasons, which were firmly rooted in the Scriptures. Not only was he strongly catechized and familiar with the dogma on this topic, he delighted in catechizing others and explaining the dogma to them.
In fact, I would imagine Charlie Kirk probably tried to explain it to Tucker Carlson at some point, as well as Candace Owens, as they were all good friends.
So, if Charlie Kirk was an "evangelical Protestant," and he was a supporter of Israel because he believed that the God described in his Bible expected him to be, and Tucker Carlson is also an "Evangelical Protestant" but he doesn't read that in his Bible and he feels free to be anti-Israel and some would even say anti-Semitic, then what's the explanation?
Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture.
If anyone is not sure where I'm going with all this, here it is in plain language.
It's long past time for "Evangelical Protestant" Christianity to agree on some principles of Dogma and establish a Catechism of our own. We need to set up some parameters and standards so that people know what it even means to be an "Evangelical" Christian, and just as importantly, what it does NOT mean to be an "Evangelical" Christian.
It is also long past time to bring back the principle of "Excommunication," so that anyone who wants to call themselves an "Evangelical" Christian but habitually violates the Dogma that is defined and codified by the Catechism can be dealt with in the way that the New Testament very clearly and unambiguously instructs us to deal with them.
The reason this is so important is that the Church of Jesus Christ is not just a social club that needs some bylaws to prevent feathers from getting ruffled.
The Church of Jesus Christ is the most important institution that exists, and it is engaged in the most important work that is being done in the world today.
There are many reasons we aren't doing such a great job, but one of the core reasons is that the "freedom in Christ" that the Apostle Paul talked about in Galatians 5:1 has been taken much too far and we've all but forgotten about something else he said on this topic in I Corinthians 6:12; "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
Because of our lack of Dogma, and because what few things we do mostly agree on have never been codified into any kind of Catechism, and because everyone feels free to just do their own thing without having any fear of excommunication or almost any other consequences, a LOT of people don't take us seriously. What's much worse is that they don't take the Gospel we have to share with them seriously either.
There's one group of people who are less likely than most others to take us seriously, and that's Israeli Jews.
The proof of that is in the coverage of Charlie Kirk's memorial service in the Israeli media. Tucker Carlson's speech was portrayed as the main event at this service, even more so than the speech given by President Trump. Erika Kirk's beautiful (and Dogmatic!) message about forgiving her husband's killer was largely ignored, unless it was being contrasted with President Trump's message about hating his opponents and not wanting the best for them, which I'm sad to say resonated pretty strongly here, in the media and also on the street.
Despite the fact that Evangelicals have been supporting Israel for decades and, in fact, were on the ground supporting the Jewish community in this country for over 100 years before the State formally came into existence, there is still a great deal of distrust and contempt for Evangelicals here. Many people point to Tucker Carlson's speech as proof that there's no such thing as "good" Christians because they're all the same, they all hate Jews, they'll all turn against us in the end, etc.
Brothers and sisters, I really don't know what the solution is to all this. I know that it's probably far too late in the game to try and work out Evangelical Protestant "Dogma" and canonize it into a "Catechism" of some kind. But I don't think it's too late to excommunicate people who express unapologetic contempt for the Scriptures. That ought to be a perfectly legitimate reason for casting someone out of the Assembly, unless they repent and recant.
In Tucker Carlson's case, this step is long overdue, and not only because he's taken to speaking out against Israel publicly and often. He's not the only one, but he would be a good place to start.
If you've read this far, I have a bonus for you. There is a video on YouTube which you can watch by clicking HERE.
This video is entitled "Why Israel" and it's a teaching by Derek Prince, one of the greatest Bible teachers of the last 100 years. I commend it to everyone, and I encourage you to share it widely.