Rachel Held Evans is not the problem. There, I said it. These hermeneutics are the inevitable result of having ignored and subsequently redefining "God-given apostolicity." Yes, it's about Sola Scriptura. If the individual can interpret Scripture any way he likes (with the witness of history rendering at best an advisory opinion), sooner or later, you're going to reject something "traditional" in favor of something else. Isn't Rachel breaking the same ecclesial "shackles" that Luther did? But it was OK, then, right? Why? Doesn't every maverick say, "This other view is tainted by..." or "This organization is not legitimate, because..." Somebody better figure out what they mean by "apostolic" and "tradition," and I mean quickly.
Look, I agree that the Scripture is plain on the matter. But the only reason I do is because I know who gave me the Scriptures, and so I read them how she reads them, and only that way. The Catholic Church gives us the Scriptures. And trust me, she's not going anywhere, because Jesus said so. (And obviously, neither is he.)
The proponents of the normalization of homosexual activity are just today's Montanists. They have no more claim to the Holy Spirit than the Montanists did. Jump in the boat; the water's rising fast.
Look, I agree that the Scripture is plain on the matter. But the only reason I do is because I know who gave me the Scriptures, and so I read them how she reads them, and only that way. The Catholic Church gives us the Scriptures. And trust me, she's not going anywhere, because Jesus said so. (And obviously, neither is he.)
The proponents of the normalization of homosexual activity are just today's Montanists. They have no more claim to the Holy Spirit than the Montanists did. Jump in the boat; the water's rising fast.
Comments