Skip to main content
It seems to me that there is a cowardly timidity among Christian leaders in the public sphere. On the one hand, I can appreciate the fact that engagement has not always been to Kingdom purposes. It is very possible that the gospel has been identified with a political program. I understand that desire to speak prophetically to all factions. Even so, it seems only the political Right hears the tsking of some.
I'm gonna speak bluntly to my good friend here, and trust that the brotherhood we have in Jesus isn't doubted in the process. You want to be liberal? Fine. You want to hammer the Right all day long? Fine. You want to doubt the wisdom of natural ethics as applied to modern America? Fine. Stupid, but fine. But you have an obligation to speak Christian truth in this public space as a disciple of Jesus Christ, no matter who it offends.
And I would appreciate the public space to defend myself in like manner. You don't have to agree with me. I don't care. But I tire of knowing exactly where you'll fall, because--pardon the frankness--politeness is more important than truth. It'd be OK if you were consistently broad-minded, but you're not, I'm sorry to say. The Right hasn't politicized the public space, and neither have orthodox Christians. The Left has. If you don't like me trying to take it back for all of us, I have to ask what you want.
This isn't the first time you've intimated that my Catholicism is the true motivation for my advocacy, even though that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, and nothing whatsoever with my disagreement I had with another person.
I only opined that an opinion grounded in natural law was allowed as a part of the public discourse, and is not a priori illegitimate, just because it's Republican or conservative.
And quite frankly, I don't care if your friend John Schneider has 20 degrees from Oxford; he was rude, and he deserved to be called a bully (which I did). If not in that space, then here. And I'm not ashamed, because I believe I am right, and I was more than fair. As I have said many times, politics can be tough. I don't believe that the mandates of civility or Christianity require that I be disrespected.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...