Skip to main content

Mea culpa. And so has Rachel Held Evans.

Shouldn't have signed on so quickly to that Rachel Held Evans piece (the post endorsing it now deleted) on what Millennials want from the Church.

I continue to believe that she's on target in decrying the attempt to be gimmicky and "cool," and to play down the very things that make the Church worth bothering with: the Word and the Sacraments.

But I missed something even more important in my initial (and culpably cursory) reading of the article. Trouble is, as David French points out, that she doesn't "get" the corollary: that if we end up denying what the Word says and the Faith teaches, there's no point in bothering in the first place.

If Ms. Held's suggestions concerning the content of the Faith were adopted, and the Bible's clear and consistent teaching about sexual ethics were changed, the Church would have no reason to exist. It would have denied its very reason for being. It would confess to being merely a changeable set of human ideas, or to worshipping a God Who doesn't know what He's talking about- and doesn't even know His own mind.

This is a point that a great many people- Millenials and otherwise- don't seem to get: the Church cannot change its teachings on homosexuality or the biblical sexual ethic. If it did, it would by that very act become "salt that had lost its savor," to use Christ's expression. It would deny the very thing that makes its existence matter.

The Faith once delivered to the saints simply does not- and cannot- change. And the condemnation of homosexual behavior is an intrinsic and constitutive part of the Faith once delivered to the saints. It is both consistent and insistent, repeated in every stratum of both Testaments.

And yes- Jesus did endorse it.

What, after all, would it profit the Church to gain the Millenials and lose its own soul? If the Church followed Ms. Evans' advice, it would be of no use to anybody of any generation.

I'm still completely "down" with Ms. Evans' appreciation of the historic sacramental and liturgical nature of Christian worship. But we gaoin nothing if we end up preserving form while sacrificing substance.


Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…