I Don't Think I'll Have to Assume Gavin Ortlund is Stupid, or Doesn't Know English

When he gives a blooper, I find I have the right to treat it as a blooper.

Open Letter to Catholic Apologists
Breaking In The Habit | 27 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REc_Uyo6IFc

2:27 An online (or printed) Apologist is "in a ministry"?

2:57 Those outside the Church are part of the members St. Paul is speaking of?

I

Thomas J

@thomasj51

No

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@thomasj51 Neither do I think so.

II

Michelle’s Vintage Library

@michelles-vintage-library

He is talking about Christians who go online and try to sow discord within the body of Christ. They care more about “being right” than speaking with love. They attack fellow Christians and accuse them and look for ways to put them down because of differences in theology or politics. That’s what he’s talking about. This, in turn, causes non-Christians to think poorly of Christianity. 3:00

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@michelles-vintage-library Try to sow discord "within the body of Christ" ... you said.

I don't think any person who has Christian beliefs would agree that these were his motivations.

Caring more about being right than speaking in love may in certain situations be the only appropriate thing.

If a priest adresses a guy who doesn't believe in Adam and Eve (and therefore isn't properly Christian) and does so in private, speaking with love may indeed be the most appropriate.

B U T if such a guy is adressed by a layman in a forum, speaking with love may be clearly against forum decorum and indeed be seen as superciliousness. Given the expectations caring about being right is the one charitable, because it's the one courteous thing to do.

I can't tell whether such and such a non-Christian thinks poorer of me or of a guy who calls himself Christian but doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, but we are not supposed to give up truth to get popularity either.

I think many of those who think poorer of me or say they do would be more concerned with "being right" against Christians, and find that easier to attain with the one who has a more hollow statement.

3:40 There are no occasions when someone frustrating can be considered as outside the scope of mission, but could be used as a foil, before 3rd party?

I think St. Thomas thought there were.

5:42 I would for my part not be eager to be treated to Hanlon's razor.

I would also not be eager to be excused, because English isn't my first language. I am good at English, and I don't mean that as an East European who understands most of a simple news programme, but has a heavy accent and asks "do you want to wash own hands" instead of "do you want to wash your hands" (reflexive pronoun being used in all three persons in Slavic and Baltic). I mean it as a man who could meaningfully analyse a passage by Tolkien. Or Shakespear.

And "attack Church teaching" ... if you consider §283 of CCC as "Church teaching" it is my full intent to attack it. If you uphold it, it shows you are not the Church.

6:00 There are souls you can't win without winning an argument.

Or have someone else win it for you.

6:25 Q 1 - probably not subconsciously.

There is a reason why I'm avoiding confrontation including apologetics with Muslims, and it is unfair to want to push me as some kind of missionary to Muslims when most certainly I'm not.

There are others I don't avoid confrontation with, because they are an Occidental adversary to beat in the societal debate.

You know, Chesterton was in some ways an Apologist because he was a Politician. He wasn't a priest or monk.

He neither wanted to sacrifice himself nor his share in what could be done for England just to avoid offending someone who wanted England to become inhuman.