Hugh Hewitt, "Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian"

Oh.

In the past, I shared some very specific concerns about Hugh "You Evangelicals Buy My Books Telling You How to Think and Live, Hear?" Hewitt.

Now Hewitt has clued us in to the fountainhead of those concerns, by telling Roman Catholic homosexual Andrew "Did I Mention I was a Roman Catholic Homosexual?" Sullivan that he, Hugh Hewitt, loudly-self-proclaimed evangelical author and speaker, was an "Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian."

Which makes just as much sense as being a Roman Catholic homosexual.

It came in this interchange:

AS: You’re not a Catholic, are you?

HH: When we come back, we’ll continue with that. Yes, I actually am, and I will return to that when we come back to the Hugh Hewitt Show. I’m an Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian, Andrew.

Okey doke.

That Hewitt can say this -- his grand testimony to this lost man and his lost hearers -- underscores all the concerns I relayed in the previous post. That Hewitt can say this tells me that he has no clue about the sharp-edged issues of the Gospel, that his move from Rome wasn't much of a move, that he's no one to help me think through the spiritual and Biblical issues of the day, that he's no evangelical spokesman.

Think it through, don't just emote it through. In saying this, Hewitt is saying that he is --

• A monergist synergist
• A Pelagian Calvinist
• A sola scriptura tradition-worshiper
• A 66-book Apocryphalist
• A monotheist idolater

I could go on and on, and perhaps smarter commenters will. But it makes as much sense as saying you're an Islamic Hindu, a Mormon Jehovah's Witness, an atheistic pantheist.

That Hewitt doesn't get that fact validates every reservation I had about his right to speak as a leader on spiritual issues. He still hasn't worked through THE issue: what must I do to be saved?

Hewitt's confession turns my yellow lights to red lights.

Parenthetically, I wonder what Hewitt will be doing next Tuesday, on October 31. Nothing? Trick-or-treating? What does he make of the Reformation? A mistake? An exaggeration? Or perhaps a correction of some minor issues that are all basically fine now? And all the Christians before and since, dead at the hands of Rome, for confessing evangelical faith? Bygones, to be let bygones?

And now I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Hewitt plans to tell us all 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know about [Mormon] Mitt Romney. Will it turn out that Hewitt is actually an evangelical Mormon Roman Catholic Christian? I don't think so -- but logically and rationally, why not?

Now, let me be clear. Am I saying Hewitt isn't a Christian? Mercy, no; only God can make that judgment. I don't judge hearts. I can barely figure out my own, and that only vaguely and unreliably. And any saved man is saved by, in, and because of Jesus Christ -- and in spite of his own sins and inconsistencies.

But while I can't judge hearts, I can and must judge words, which flow from the heart (Matthew 12:34). Also, I'm not supposed to listen to just anyone who comes along and tells me what to think (1 John 4:1). And for his part, Hewitt should know that those who put themselves in a position to tell others how to be Christian, and witness, and serve, invite a harsh judgment on themselves (James 3:1).

Add to all that the fact that Paul's most severe language is reserved for those who get the Gospel wrong (Galatians 1:6-9). The least you have to say is that Hewitt evidently doesn't display that he shares the apostle's concern.

I'll listen to Hewitt with respect as he talks about law, and about politics. He knows these things. I'll listen to his political interviews (not his adoring Roman Catholic priest interviews, thanks). He is hands-down the best interviewer I've ever heard.

But I wish he'd shut up about spiritual matters. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about and, what's worse, he doesn't know that he doesn't know.