Response to Rachel Held Evans's "How to win a culture war and lose a generation"

If I seem to be angry with Christians who differ on my view of marriage, I don't mean to be. My ire is mainly directed at clergy and so-called Christian 'leaders' who ought to know better. Many of these people received theological degrees from seminaries, and are employed in church positions paid for by old endowments, all of which was given them by churchgoers (present and past) who had no idea that their money was sponsoring such people.

Sometimes I can get frustrated with people in the pews who seem, at times, to be content to go through life like Mr. Magoo--oblivious to all the dangers and concerns around them. However, my indignation is not for them--though I wish, for the ten-thousandth time, that they would finally inform themselves on this issue. My concern is with those who should know better, and don't, or don't care, or lie to others and to themselves.

I recently came across this suspicious piece by Rachel Held Evans, who is apparently someone who has made her name among the tiny but influential Christian Left as a writer and blogger. Evans is furious that Christians in North Carolina, when they were in the voting booth alone with their consciences, voted to protect traditional marriage. I will get into a few of her assumptions in a minute.

What is interesting is Evans' update where she admits to disabling the comment section of her piece because she wants to keep it a 'safe place for conversation.' Let me get her exact quote:

"Update: I've closed the comment thread, just because it's become too much to monitor and I want to keep this a safe place for conversation. Thanks for understanding!"

A safe place for the type of conversation that she wants to have, I think she means. Irony, irony.

Evans must be a lot like the rector of the church my family used to attend in Mississippi in the small town where I currently live: on the surface, he gave the pretense of being an affable, open to discussion type of person. However, my former rector was really a bully at heart, and we saw it on full display every Sunday. Instead of hearing about the 'good news,' we heard some of the most outrageous claims that I have ever heard in a sermon...things about global warming and capitalism that most Democrats and mainline liberals won't touch...at least on camera.

Here is my point:

My wife and I felt bullied on Sunday mornings not because we hadn't heard such stupid, uninformed nonsense before. After all, I was completing a Ph.D. program at a big university, so we saw and heard this sort of stuff all the time. I also once went to a conference where a nice couple did their presentation on 'sustainability,' and I watched them (it was actually rather funny) read stuff they had printed off from Think Progress and other far-left websites...their naivety was cute: they thought that stuff was real. ;-)

No, the reason we felt bullied in church was because we were listening to a lot of stuff we knew was not true (about the Texas state education board treatment of Thomas Jefferson, etc.), but we were sitting in a format (a church sermon) where we could not (for various reasons) respond. Our former rector had a near-literal 'bully pulpit.'

I've asked God to help me forgive this man, and one thing I tell myself is that perhaps he is unaware that he is bullying. In fact, if no one ever tells him otherwise, how can he know?

And yet, Evan's desire to put up her scream of a blog post (with all of its stupid assumptions), and then disable all comments or responses, makes me question my earlier assertion if indeed people like her and my former rector are truly unaware that they are using their speaking/writing venues to bully others.

Think about it. At the conference, once the couple had finished their presentation, they were SLAMMED: gently but critically by conservative-leaning people like me (I said nothing, but others did), and then slammed HARD by liberal-leaning people like my colleague who was sitting next to me. She was mad as hell and did not hold back.

However, in a sermon or a blog, these same people can rant their bile nonsense out, and not have to worry about a response from the rest of the proletarian abyss. That might be the very reason that progressive-minded people, who seemed to me to show little interest in religion back in the 1990s, seem interested now. They have the speech-venue that they have always wanted.

Now, a few other things.

Evans is largely uninterested in theological arguments. Furthermore, Evans never once discusses the physical and mental health issues involving homosexual lifestyles. (Few leftist Christians ever do, other than to blame all of these issues as rooted in homophobia, etc.) One comes away thinking Evans is fine with gay men dying of AIDS, anal cancer, suffering from the scarring on the anus, or committing suicide...as long as her own trendy friends can't call her a 'bigot.' Evans does not really discus anything that matters, and most of her post is illogical slop and unworthy of comment, but there was one nugget of interest I want to discuss. To quote Evans here:

"Is a political “victory” worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with gays and lesbians? And is a political “victory” worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks—what if we get this wrong? Too many Christian leaders seem to think the answer to that question is “yes,” and it's costing them. Because young Christians are ready for peace. We are ready to lay down our arms. We are ready to stop waging war and start washing feet. And if we cannot find that sort of peace within the Church, I fear we will look for it elsewhere."

Notice how Evans used 'we' many times instead of saying 'I'? When Evans does this, it is not a grammatical slip, meaning she does not go from talking about herself to talking about herself and her friends combined. This is a rhetorical tactic that I want to discuss.

First of all, when someone begins to talk about his/her views in terms of 'we,' our cynicism button should automatically turn on: if it doesn't, you need to unplug yourself out of your state of Orwellian 'thought control'.

Secondly, almost anyone who speaks in terms of 'we' when discussing his age group or her 'generation,' especially "The Youth," etc., is lying or at least distorting the truth.

The problem with her argument is that I am 33 years old, not one of these 'old farts,' and I don't agree with anything she...Rachel Held Evans...says. (Not that she cares anyway.)

Thirdly, people such as Evans are stuck in some sort of demographic rut, which shows what we already knew anyway...that her main inspiration for her theological intuitions was never Revelation through Holy Scripture, prayer, discernment, or the Blessed Sacraments, but was instead caused by her preoccupation with sociopolitical fashions of the day.

If Evans had for one moment eased her grip on the theory she depends on to prescribe her interpretations, she would have to somehow deal with contradictions such as this: there are many Christians such as myself, young fathers and mothers who have graduate degrees, who have lived with this 'culture war' that she is tired of (because her side lost this battle...but I digress), who do not agree with her.

Most of these people I know are like me: they try to read the Bible at least once a day, and they have lots of books in their library and next to their beds about the Christian faith and what it means to live that life. They are responsible, have families and jobs (not living in their parent's basement at age 28), are active in their communities, are compassionate people who care for others. Also, all of them attend a local church (Episcopalian/Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, nondenominational, etc.) at least weekly, and usually during the week as well; they are very involved in their church community, and give lots of their time, money, and effort to it. (They stand out in stark contrast to some of the 'young Christians' Evans discusses, most of whom might 'feel spiritual,' but can't be bothered too often to get out of bed an hour or two early on Sunday to be part of a church community...even when the church has EVENING SERVICES!)

Bottom line, there is no demographic question here when it comes to Christians of any age group who don't want to be bothered with living out their faith, or Christians who do not want to be troubled with understanding the true nature and personality of the God with whom they claim to be in a covenant, or Christians who are ashamed of their faith because it calls for them (at times) to go against some of the fashions of our times.

THEY ARE JUST BAD CHRISTIANS, period. Or they are uninformed, ignorant, or their faith hit a snag somewhere and it has failed to blossom and grow as God wants it to. The age demographic has nothing to do with it. Old and young people have this problem.

There are lots of people (and God bless them because I believe that we all might start here in the beginning)

who are in touch with the 'pathos' of their faith, the feelings that come with being in contact with God. However, they are ignorant of the 'ethos' and 'logos' that pertain to their faith. They are like we all once were...immature Christians. However, spiritual immaturity is not like physical immaturity, and it can...and has...reached all age levels.

Speak for thee, Rachel Held Evans, and not for me!

Father K...A Spiritual Father called by Christ

I have spent a lot of time here this week (and in past weeks) speaking out against revisionist clergy, and people who I think are using every weapon in their arsenal to undermine Christian faith and Christ's mission here on earth. While I think all of this is part of the 'good fight' that has to happen if we are to defend the faith, sometimes it is draining to focus only on the abyss that is trying to draw the church into itself.

After all, counterpoints and criticism is just one weapon in this battle to restore Our Lord's church to its true calling, and to make it a force for good, salvation, and holiness in the world. Indeed, even in the mess that the Episcopal church is in (the circular firing squad that its General Convention leaders have began and continue to encourage), there are terrific stories and wonderful people, and I think they go to the root of the soul. In fact, I want to take some time and talk about someone today...one of my heroes.

When I moved to Arlington in 2008 to do my doctoral coursework, I did not know how blessed I was to be moving to the Diocese of Fort Worth, but most of all, I think God brought me to UT-Arlington so that I could have Father Kresowaty (or 'Father K' as most of us affectionately know him) as my pastor for 2 years.

I was not raised in any sort of catholic/liturgical background: I had only returned to Christ about 3 years before I first walked through the doors of Saint Alban's (I guess out of curiosity), and I had never chosen a 'room' to enter. (I was sort of Methodist, but I'd never been active in the denomination.) However, I think one of the factors that led me to choose to be confirmed into the Anglican church was Father K.

I wasn't sure why at the time, but today I was rereading the Book of Common Prayer's office on Ordination, and I noticed where the Bishop asks the candidate for deacon if he will "do [his] best to pattern [his] life in accordance with the teaching of Christ, so that [he] may be a wholesome example to all people".

In his service to Christ, Father K has truly been a living embodiment of this. The Holy Spirit seems to have really used Father K as an instrument to encourage me to deepen my own faith, not just through reading, but through finding Christ through the blessed sacraments.

One of the saddest days of my life was my last service in 2010 as a parish member (I have been to Saint Alban's to visit several times since) there in Arlington. However, I think God sent me to Arlington not to earn a Ph.D., but to meet Father K. I'm not sure why God sent me back to Mississippi after two years, but I just have to trust He has a plan for me...one way or another.

Finally, Fr. K baptized both of my daughters, and if we were to have another child, I think we might drive all the way back to Arlington to have Fr. K baptize him/her as well. Father Kresowaty is truly called by God, and he is God's instrument here on Earth.

God bless you, Father K, and may he continue to use you here on this lost and lonely world.

To Liberal Heretics: The Best Advice I can Give

Sir Thomas More: Roper, the answer is no...and will be no as long as you're a heretic. William Roper: Now, that's a word I don't like, Sir Thomas! Sir Thomas More: It's not a likeable word or thing.

Lord help me. Why do I try to reason with revisionist clergy and their toadies? Why not just try to rope the wind for a change? (Hey, that would be fun and goofy. My kids would love it!) Maybe I am a glutton for punishment. Nevertheless, I thought I would write on it. The spark for this discussion was their jubilation (I guess they never knew, even if the rest of us did) over President Obama's decision to personally back the complete overhaul of our legal and secular concept of marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

But be ready for a lot of talking to the abyss.

Most revisionist clergy just call any assurance with the function of marriage as we have historically understood it,and any indignation and frustration with frenzied activists who want to toss it overboard without a real adult conversation about it, which, to my knowledge, the Episcopal Church has never had...they call us 'self-righteous.' No debate. No counterpoints. No explanation of how they are not continuing the weakening of our social and family structures. No explanation about how their choice to culturally embrace the gay lifestyle (which is the real reason for pushing same-sex unions) is not going to make things worse for gay men who are dealing with lots of physical and mental health issues related to this lifestyle that we now want to condone with every fiber of our public life. No...we are just 'self-righteous.' That is it.

First of all, before you as liberal clergy call another person 'self-righteous', and before you rob the word of its usefulness to turn it into a political dart (and before you try to teach two or three members of your congregation to use that word in their responses to orthodox laypersons who are trying to raise awareness), maybe we need to restudy here the root of the word: it means righteous on our own terms.

I haven't been to seminary--though I'm thinking of going after I finish my dissertation. However, from what I have read, justification on our own terms sounds more like liberal theology than orthodox theology. Justification in liberal theology seems to depend on 'becoming a more fuller you' (in the words of John Shelby Spong) than it does in putting your sins on the cross for Christ to bear. But this isn't what we are really talking about now.

When it comes to my views as a Christian and an orthodox Episcopal churchman, it may shock you to realize this since your opinion about me is already made up, but I don't think of myself as righteous on my own terms (and indeed I hope I am not proud enough to consider myself righteous at all, but I think of myself as a loathsome and ungrateful sinner who is saved only by Christ's love). I am, however, justified through faith by the terms that Christ has set for all of us.

I've read J.I. Packer, and he makes it very clear that we are justified if (1) we accept the sacrifice Jesus made (as both our pascal lamb, like Issac, and high priest, like Abraham), and (2) if we try to show our love and appreciation to God by following his commandments. Following the commandments, Packer showed me, does not save us, but it is an outward and visible sign of our reciprocal love for God. (Christians who say they believe in Jesus as their savior, but who don't want to be bothered with--and even scorn the idea of--reciprocating His love by living a sacramental life and following His word are just bad Christians. There is no way to soft-soap this.)

Everything else that I have said, here and elsewhere, has been in defense of the gospel that I was given when I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior in my beautiful former parish back in Texas...the one revisionists such as yourselves constantly refer to as 'breakaway'...which I have no idea what that means in the midst of the current sad state of Episcopal unpleasantness anymore.

But I do not believe, then or now, that this issue and my concern for the respect for holy orders has ever had anything to do with me. I gave up 'me' in a small church coffee house in 2005 when I asked Christ to 'abide in me.' Maybe it has something to do with you, but we'll get to that later.

I don't know how you revisionist clergy define 'self-righteous,' but maybe you could find another word for yourselves and your small (and ever-shrinking) group of sycophants.

(2). When it comes to many of you liberal clergy, however, I guess I am confused. The most flummoxing thing about your situation is that in some of your posts today and in during this week, you very clearly violated your holy orders. I don't see any way out of it.

I left my BCP at work today, but I've read profusely over the rite of ordination for deacon and priest (I have lots of friends who are priests...both ECUSA and ACNA), and I remember several passages where a candidate vows before God to uphold the Holy Scriptures and the Blessed Sacraments, and promises to be an example to his flock, and promises to love righteousness and hate evil (the evil itself, not the person).

I cannot read into your hearts, but I can tell something about you through your actions, and your actions lately, which in many cases were unsolicited replies to what other clergy and laypersons were saying about President Obama's remarks on social media, are clear indications that you are holding conflicting beliefs about what you promised to do when you were ordained, and what you want to do in this current 'spirit of the times.' Now I admit that there are parts of the gospel that I'm not sure of, and things I wish I could rewrite, just like some of you would like to rewrite the parts about homosexual culture and gay marriage. However, the Holy Scriptures themselves rebel against this idea for a reason, and C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity writes about it:

“The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.”

God intends for the Gospel and the Holy Scriptures to rebel against some of our more fashionable inclinations because, as Lewis shows us, the Gospel is in itself a unified evangelical argument that God uses to get others to choose Him...to Know Him. That is why we cannot read whatever we want into the Scriptures, and we are cautioned by the Apostles into not doing so.

However, it seems to me most of you don't want to follow a holistic/historic/universal/catholic interpretation of the Scriptures. You call that 'fundamentalism' and 'biblical literalism', and other isms beside these two, but it is late, and I'm too tired to write all of your fatuous foolishness down now. Okay, fine. That is your choice, and God gives it to you.

But why do you continue to serve in a holy vocation if you no longer believe in the foundation which is the reason for that vocation in the first place? I don't get it.

I read about a priest in England (I have lost the link) who resigned his post because he disagreed with the teachings of the church as it pertained to him and his gay partner. I think this priest is a very honorable man, even if I disagree with him on theological principles.

If you have a problem with the holy orders your took, I respect that...but why do you cling to a sacerdotal vocation?

Also, I worry about how this effects your standing with Christ because Jesus and the Apostles have more to say about false teachers than almost any other topic. Saint Peter talks with concern and love for those lost in sin, but when it comes to those who teach a false gospel, his tone changes and his outrage is obvious. And I remember how Jesus cleansed the temple...with a whip of chords.

Be careful, discern, repent, and love God's commandments as the Psalms tell us to, for they are glorious.

One last thought. When you can't get your way, take it like mature men and women. Don't act like babies.

God bless you. Goodnight, and good luck.