Category: Christianity generally
Sunday 10/23/16
Quislings gotta quisle (and a more charitable explanation)
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, an Evangelical organization that played important roles in the college and young adult lives of both me and Mrs. Tipsy (this book, for one major instance, packed one of the pivotal epiphanies of my life as a Christian), has taken a stand against the sexual zeitgeist and in favor of an essentially orthodox Christian view of human sexuality.
It predictably is being vilified for it.
What I find depressing in the vilification is the predominant theme, by professing Christians, that a Christian organization must not declare Christian teaching if enough members of a sexual minority aver that they are hurt or made to feel unsafe by it. Since the tone is not heckling, I’ll call this a Sniveler’s Veto.
Of course, there always is a fall-back position, which is implicit in the notion that we mustn’t declare Christian teaching if it’s hurtful or makes someone feel unsafe. The opening gambit of the Father of Lies has ever been “hath God truly said?” Friends and Snivelers United assure us that they’ve been listening to their holy spirit and what God hath truly said really isn’t all that clear.
In other words, we mustn’t declare Christian teaching because it’s false. This is more heckle-like.
IVCF apparently anticipated the vilification but thinks it’s possible to tell the truth without attacking anyone’s dignity:
We do continue to hold to an orthodox view of human sexuality and Christian marriage, as you can read in our Theology of Human Sexuality Document at the bottom of the article.
That said, we believe Christlikeness, for our part, includes both embracing Scripture’s teachings on human sexuality—uncomfortable and difficult as they may be—as well as upholding the dignity of all people, because we are all made in God’s image.
Some will argue this cannot be done. We believe that we must if we want to be faithful followers of Jesus.
I regret that Protestants are compelled to revisit, revisit and revisit aspects of Christian tradition that are out of favor currently. They do so because, in Protestant theory, tradition is virtually weightless. Spiritual ancestors don’t get a vote — not even 3/5.
When I was an Elder in a Calvinistic Church, we were revisiting what church offices women may hold. I ended up on the “liberal” side, frustrated that the “conservative” side seemingly argued thus:
- Our doctrine affirms, and our entire Protestant tradition depends upon, the perspicacity of Scripture.
- Our tradition is that only men may be Deacons, Elders and Pastors.
- Therefore, Scripture clearly teaches that only men may be Deacons, Elders and Pastors.
I had not yet experienced my last major epiphany — the one about the incoherence of Christianity without frank reckoning with tradition.
If you asked me today whether Calvinist Churches should have women pastors, my answers would be “How should I know whether you should; your conception of pastors is not the historic conception of Priests” and “Right or wrong, you will have them because Protestants can’t say ‘no’ to the spirit of the age indefinitely.” (That Church now has Husband-Wife Co-Pastors — nice kids, by the way — so it’s hardly adventurous of me to predict it.)
And, be it noted, she that weds the spirit of the age is soon made a widow:
[W]hoever advocates the conciliatory strategy today fails or refuses to see the conditions in which Christians have been living. It is utterly mistaken to take the position that many do: namely that the Church should take over some liberal-democratic ingredients, open up to modern ideas and preferences, and then, after having modernized herself, manage to overcome hostility and reach people with Christian teachings …
An aversion to Christianity runs so deep in the culture of modernity that no blandishment or fawning on the part of the Church can change it. Going too far along this road actually threatens the very essence of Christianity.
(Ryszard Legutko, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies)
Legutko’s book sheds some more sympathetic light on the IVCF progressives: giving them every benefit of every doubt, they’re just ahead of the curve on ingratiating themselves to the emergent Liberal-Democratic Totalitarianism, much as clergy in communist lands tried to do what must be done to preserve a remnant for a more propitious day.
Quislings gotta quisle, yeah, but conscientious leaders in bad times sometimes make choice that in hindsight are bad or at least embarrassing.
The more I think about it, the more consternation I feel at the state of Evangelicalism and the happier I am that I got out of this debating society and into the Church, which admits that Scripture and Tradition belong together.
* * * * *
“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)
Sunday, 10/2/16
Thursday, 9/29/16
Wednesday 9/7/16
Death and funerals
The last Aunt or Uncle of my parents’ generation died Saturday as I was tied up in seminars, a longish road trip back home, a quick power nap to compensate for a bit of insomnia Friday-Saturday, Vespers, dinner, and finally some Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives and social media — where I learned that the anticipated death had indeed occurred.
The Facebook condolences to my cousin, with whom my Aunt lived, were bountiful and well-meaning, but I’ll give you a Pro Tip: Do not rely on funeral home comments or social media comments about a death to build a Christian view of the afterlife anything.
They seem to fall into an odd category of speech, like “Hi, how are ya?,” that must baffle anyone with autism spectrum disorder, since they are not really what they purport on the surface. Most of what I have in mind is pink ponies ‘n angel wings ‘n reunion with spouse ‘n beloved Fido and such. (I’ve never overheard what my autism-spectrum brother says to the bereaved at funeral visitations, now that I think of it.)
I guess “social convention” is the best label for this category of speech, though it can get pretty unconventional. I recall the parents of an adopted son who had been killed in a traffic accident at age 19 or 20. Greeting the mourners coming through the visitation line, the parents, instead of bereavement, expressed that they had asked the Lord keep their son from damning sins (they said it more circuitously than that — I don’t remember the exact words) and that they were comfortable with this, His terrible swift answer.
I’ve offered my cousin my own Facebook condolences (“Eternal be her memory!”) that probably strike others as odd.
If you want to say something at my wake, maybe the best would be “Finally, he gets some uninterrupted time to figure out all this stuff.” This, too, would be bad theology, but bad in a good way.
But if you stay for my funeral, what you’ll hear will shock you if you’ve never been to an Orthodox funeral. After serving them in a small parish for nearly 19 years, I’d paraphrase thus:
He’s dead,
He’s dead,
He’s really dead.
Remember him, O Lord, when You come into your Kingdom.
And remember, O man,
That you’ll soon be dead, too.
Thus for about 60 minutes. Then you’ll get a chance to kiss my cold, dead self (I almost reduced that to “body,” but that would be dubious theology) goodbye.
You don’t need to build that, as Christ’s Church already, and long ago, did that for us.
* * * * *
“In learning as in traveling and, of course, in lovemaking, all the charm lies in not coming too quickly to the point, but in meandering around for a while.” (Eva Brann)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 