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

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...
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...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...