Skip to main content

I'll Be The Bad Guy (You Probably Won't Charm Anyone Into Heaven)

There is an army of moderate-to-liberal Christians, who may be committed to the traditional teaching on human sexuality, but they somehow think that by some combination of political activity and meanness, some earlier generation of Christians forfeited the moral authority to speak to certain groups of people with the words of Jesus, and credibly to the reality of the human person.

Such an idea is not completely without foundation, but sooner or later, we come back to the truth about human sexuality, the purposes of our reproductive system, and the limits of self-definition. There is no way that the truth of an authentic human anthropology will survive in the ghetto of private Christian devotion. Much if not all of it is public truth, accessible to reason alone. Do some of these Christians actually believe that the decisions of the secular state about what constitutes a family has no impact upon how ordinary people think about their sexuality? Do you actually think you will be able to convert most of the world, to convince them of the way Jesus intends us to live, if every cultural institution remains against us? No; the West was a Christian society, because we transformed it from the inside. And it wasn't simply Christian dominance in the proper sense; it was the harmony of right reason, and revealed truth.

Let me summarize: the idea that we should pay no attention to the secular kingdoms of the earth, and to the values they espouse, while we attempt to save souls from within our enclaves, is utter and complete foolishness.

You might have to endure the sting of being called a bigot, and just stand there and take it. If we have the truth, why are we afraid of it?

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...