- Oh, mon dieu!
- Where’s Jesus buried? Trick question. NYT fails.
- Reader’s choice.
- A victim of gay marriage steps forward
- Culture pollution
Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about his choice to abstain from [football]. The brutality of it violated the “sanctity” of the body, he said. What makes that word particularly interesting is that Coates is also a materialist.
At National Review David French was quick to respond and, true to the binary nature of the game, in exactly the opposite direction. “As a Christian, my view is completely different,” said French. “My body is not me, but the temporary vessel my soul inhabits.”
Er, yeah, but no. Not as a Christian. Or as Coates tweeted, “That point where you realize you don’t know the difference between ‘gnostic’ and ‘orthodox’ Christianity. Oh mon dieu…”
(Joel Miller, emphasis added)
Oh, mon dieu indeed! French isn’t just some guy who writes for the right and so makes an obligatory profession of Christianity. David French is a Senior Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian-oriented public interest law firm, and was, I believe, formerly with Alliance Defense Fund (now Alliance Defending Freedom), also a Christian-oriented public interest law firm.
Joel Miller goes on to explain that in Christianity, the body is not just a temporary vessel. This is not a distinctly Orthodox teaching, either. Robin Phillips, before he became Orthodox, wrote extensively on the infiltration of Christianity by gnostic ideas like that at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview (as in Chuck Colson).
At least French is not a pastor. And he is a pretty durn good lawyer.
In another utterance of religious ignorance, the New York Times recently described the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as “marking the site where many Christians believe Jesus is buried ….” Later, that reportedly was changed to “was buried.” (H/T Rod Dreher)
Your call: which is more appalling: Evangelical gnosticism or totally ignorance in The Newspaper of Record of the most basic tenets of the dominant religion of its culture?
For my money, it’s the former, because I consider roll-your-own Christianities to be more dangerous than the New York Times crusade against orthodox Christianity.
That should give you a tacit idea of what I don’t want to see endangered – the integrity of the faith – and what I’ve pretty well given up on preserving – the respectability of the faith.
I already posted a snippet of this on Facebook and had some pushback. But the author views herself and her children as victims of gay marriage, and she makes some valid points eloquently.
After her husband came out:
I tried to convince him to stay, to stick it out and fight to save our marriage. But my voice, my desires, my needs—and those of our two young children—no longer mattered to him. We had become disposable, because he had embraced one tiny word that had become his entire identity. Being gay trumped commitment, vows, responsibility, faith, fatherhood, marriage, friendships, and community. All of this was thrown away for the sake of his new identity.
[Then after their children were used in a photo feature of his new “marriage” to a man]
After our children’s pictures were publicized, a flood of comments and posts appeared. Commenters exclaimed at how beautiful this gay family was and congratulated my ex-husband and his new partner on the family that they “created.” But there is a significant person missing from those pictures: the mother and abandoned wife. That “gay family” could not exist without me.
There is not one gay family that exists in this world that was created naturally.
Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature. Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness. They represent covenants broken, love abandoned, and responsibilities crushed. They are built on betrayal, lies, and deep wounds.
This is also true of same-sex couples who use assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy or sperm donation to have children. Such processes exploit men and women for their reproductive potential, treat children as products to be bought and sold, and purposely deny children a relationship with one or both of their biological parents. Wholeness and balance cannot be found in such families, because something is always missing. I am missing. But I am real, and I represent hundreds upon thousands of spouses who have been betrayed and rejected.
Of course, none of this matters because what we’re really after these days is useful things like “’college and career readiness’ and ’21st century literacy’ for a ‘global economy,’” right? Who says “children of gay couples” can’t be as durable as cogs in the machine as any other children?
“We pollute the cultural landscape with irresponsible expressions in the name of progress and call them freedom of speech. Thus, our cultural landscape is increasingly uninhabitable. If we cannot dwell inside the imaginative landscape of what is offered, then what is the purpose of creativity?”
Makoto Fujimura, quoted in Thomas Hibbs, Soliloquies, via Mars Hill Audio Addenda
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)