A warning on this Feast of St. Stephen

Whether Left or Right, beware those who try to kit-bash the history of the Jewish and Christian faith into a cable news talking point:

I'm sure the second list isn't trying to be serious (thought a case could be made).  It's making a point. Those on the Left, who once roasted the 'Religious Right' for trying to mold Christianity into the political Right, are worse when they do the same with the political Left.  Because they add hypocrisy. 

Not that we shouldn't take the Scriptural record and apply it to our times today.  But mostly in the sense of saying 'if God asks something of me, will I say yes?'.  Or 'do I believe God is at work in my life?'.  Or, 'do I believe the events of the Bible are true and that Christ is the savior of the world?'.  Or, 'am I following the expectations that God has of me as proclaimed through the prophets and the apostles?'.  And on and on.  Not, 'If I ignore this Himalayan pile of verses and historical fact, I can make Jesus into a socio-political puppet!'. 

Again, we certainly can try to understand modern events in biblical terms, but never should the conclusion align point by point with an editorial from a political campaign.  My sons - as usual my guides in navigating the mindset of young Americans today - once said we are the generation that finally proves an education is not enough.  Unlike days or yore, when people tried to follow the truth where it led, we begin with the assumption that we are the truth and work backwards.  This approach to the Faith shows that the faithful are not immune to this development.  I see little in our present age to suggest that assumption is working. 

Post-Christian Catholicism

Is best demonstrated here:

If we wonder why Ohio enshrined the sex, drugs and abortion culture into our state constitution, you need only thank the majority of Catholics.  

Always remember, the biblical narrative is, as often as not, a minority witness.  It's the majority of those called by God flipping God the high middle finger, and loathing those who remain faithful in the process.  It is not a story where the majority always does the right thing and follows the commandments given them by the God who loves them. 

Rudolf Bultmann, Pope Francis and a little story

Why?  That is the million dollar question

When I was in seminary back in the 1990s, one of my professors told a story about a theology student from way back in the day that I took, put in the back of my memory, and largely forgot about.  Until I saw someone defending Pope Francis as nothing less than 100% in line with historical Catholic teaching in light of the whole synod going on.  

According to my professor, the student was studying in Germany over Easter one year.  That year, word came to him that none other than Rudolf Bultmann would be delivering the Easter sermon at a local church.  The student thought, in his best Grinchy way, that this was something he simply must hear.  So he made sure to be there and see what would surely be a wacked out, far out Easter message.  

That's because Bultmann, of course, was one of the most popular advocates of de-mythologizing the New Testament.  What's that mean?  It means stop taking the New Testament, or the Bible in general, seriously.  At least literally.  At least historically.  In a world of planes, trains and automobiles, computers, air-conditioning and television, there simply is no more room for talking donkeys and people walking about on water or raising from the dead. It's time to admit the Bible for what it is: myth (in the 'didn't really happen' sense). 

Of course this was before the rise of the liberation movements and the growing scrutiny of the Bible as a cultural relic of bigotry, sexism, homophobic and transphobic prejudice, barbarism and savagery.  It was just saying we need to look at the Jesus story the same way we see Apollo or Thor or Luke Skywalker.  None of it was real, none of it happened.  Or at least as much as you feel uncomfortable clinging to.  You certainly could believe, but you didn't have to.  Bultmann was on record as saying that belief in an actual physical Resurrection was entirely unnecessary for Christian faith. 

That's why an Easter sermon from him had to be worth the ticket.  So the student went.   And there was Dr. Bultmann. And then came the sermon.  And the student was stunned.  

Why was he stunned?  Because he heard that morning an Easter sermon that wouldn't shame Billy Graham.  It was all there:  the nail pierced hands, the arms stretched out on the cross in love for mankind, the spear in the side, the dead rising, the earthquake, the empty tomb, the risen Lord.  All of it.  He said Bultmann even did the famous trick of holding out his own arms when he described Christ's arms on the cross spread out for our salvation.  And this was the great de-mythologizer!  

So what's my point kiddies?  My point is, just because someone prattles on with orthodox Christian language doesn't mean they believe it.  And I typically assume those who say you don't have to believe it don't believe it.  While I understand that the Gospel, including teachings such as the Resurrection, are matters of faith, I also know the Church didn't evangelize the world by approaching the pagans with a 'take or leave it' attitude.  Most movements and causes don't accomplish much if that is their approach. 

I admit that I have no clue how much of the Bible, the Gospel or Christ Bultmann didn't actually believe in, beyond them being myths and tales and little white lies.  I know he didn't seem to care how much anyone did believe.  If you thought they were nothing but ancient folklore from a bygone, pre-industrial age, no problem.  I also know he was heavily influential among those - Protestants at least - who followed his lead and began rejecting anything and everything from the Bible as fables and nothing more (think The Jesus Seminar).  It was a great way to reject pretty much anything of the Faith you choose, once you no longer believe it was real. 

But when called upon to give an Easter morning sermon in a German church, you'd never have known a bit of it.  No Baptist preacher in a tent revival was ever more serious, or literal, about the crucified and risen Christ as Bultmann was that Sunday morning. 

And so?   And so, just because we see people running about saying Jesus this and Resurrection that or Risen Lord here or Savior Jesus or Heaven and Hell there doesn't mean in the depths of their minds they believe it actually happened, or that anything from the Gospel or the historical Faith has any real basis in fact or reality.  To them, it might be like gleaning inspiration from a few Harry Potter tales, but not really believing you can go to London and get a train to Hogwarts.  

It should be mentioned that Bultmann, to his credit, was open about his views.  How many, I wonder, aren't.  As we see so many leaders buckle and throw values, doctrines, teachings, customs, rituals, social norms and common sense out the window under the slightest pinky-pushback, it makes you wonder. 

 After all, even the most cynical non-believer can catch the warmth and fuzziness in the distilled Jesus story even if you think it was all fake.  I know as an agnostic I did.  But that warm and fuzzy comes to a screeching halt if someone puts a gun to your head, or even threatens to compromise your middle class living, if you don't think in your gut of guts it ever happened.   After all, will I go to the mattresses over freedom?  I'd like to think.  Will I go to the mattresses over the story about Washington cutting down a cherry tree?  Nope. 

The German church in the 1930s often catches flak for having sold out to the Nazis.  That so many German Lutheran leaders happily draped the Swastika over the altar, and Germans in those churches gladly goose-stepped down the naves, has been endlessly condemned since I can remember.  But consider.  Bultmann was hardly alone, and by the 20th Century, Germany was leading the charge in endless new philosophies and theories for the secular world.  Was a time that if you wanted a PhD in philosophy, you had to know German.  

Therefore, it shouldn't be shocking that many of those people and leaders in that Church, as much as anywhere, had accepted a secular take on religion: As something invented by ancient man, embellished, and changed accordingly depending on the latest, hippest.  Not that the Scriptures were worthless, they simply weren't true.  At least in terms of reality and history.  Therefore, anything within the pages could be suspect, or discarded when no longer up to the latest modern perfection that progress always yields.  

That's why theologians point out that, though he would appear a theological liberal to us Americans, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the context of the German church in the 1930s, was practically a fundamentalist.  But so many weren't, and had accepted the idea that a 'God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross' (official Niebuhr quote).  

So when the Nazis rose to power, do you think they were going to take a bullet for the cause?  Do you think people who learned that Jesus was as much a myth as Odin or Robin Goodfellow were going to stand up to the Nazis because of their faith in Christ, even though their faith was on nothing other than good thinking? Heck no!

Does that mean everyone we see throwing over old Christian values and teachings and priorities, tossing aside the exclusivity of the Gospel, warming up to forces once consider antithetical to God's revelation, are all people who no longer believe the Gospel story historically happened?  No.  I'm sure more than once a favorite believing disciple denied Jesus when the heat was on.

Nonetheless, I also bet that there's more cynicism about the historical Faith than we might know, or care to know, even among many leaders today, no matter what they say.  These are people who didn't sweat their doubts, because for many generations in America and the West you could still be a good Christian on Sunday and play with a secular world through the rest of the week.  After all, that hipster non-Christian world was honor bound to live according to its lofty post-war promises of tolerance, diversity, kindness, openness, inclusion and respect for all different beliefs and opinions and expressions. 

Now, as we witness the emergence of this post-diversity revolution and its diminishing tolerance for those who won't bend a knee to the new progressive movement, expect more and more to drape over the altars whatever flags the new way demands. And no matter how evil - up to, and including, mutilating the bodies of adolescents in the name of post-genderism - you can bet the best we'll get from many is a good old Rodney Dangerfield collar tug.  At worst, they will actively promote the evil and join in.  After all, if the thing you see before your eyes demands conformity, do you think you'll say no in the name of something you no longer believe?

I can't believe it. I'm ignoring the mutilation of adolescents

Making the Christian Church irrelevant

Ages ago, during my journey into the Catholic Church, I stumbled upon Mark Shea's old blog Catholic and Enjoying It.  Later, I had the chance to meet Mark at the EWTN studios.  We chatted for a while.  He seemed somewhat engaged as we discussed my conversion.  Mostly he rose up and took notice when I mentioned that, before I entered the Church, I spent years looking into the Catholic Faith.  What I found, more often than not, was people who told me that being Catholic means, well, whatever you want it to mean.  Catholics believe all sorts of things really, at least nowadays.  Most seemed to find that refreshing.  Which sounded to me more of a Protestant caricature than most Protestants I knew.

Mark made a quip about Catholics being the biggest obstacle for non-Catholics entering the Church.  Or some such.  He assured me that this was NOT Catholicism.  Catholicism is not a salad bar, where you can pick and choose your beliefs and favorite doctrines.  It isn't Protestantism, where you chase after your own version of the Faith and build a new church based on the latest.  You can't just take parts of the Church's teachings and ditch them because you don't like them.  In answering a question I emailed him requesting more specifics, he made it clear that the Magisterium isn't the latest opinions about Church teaching.  And we can't just go back through church history, find obscure teachings or writings by even the Church Fathers, and then use isolated statements to reject what the Church has universally affirmed and taught through the ages. 

Which is why I link to this.  I mostly ignore Mark at this point.  But this is worth noting.  Mark has linked to Orthodox firebrand David Bentley Hart.  To traditional and little-o Orthodox Christians, Hart is a bit like John Dominic Crossan of the infamous Jesus Seminar (Mark Shea used to eviscerate Crossan for his liberal theological approach to the Faith).  Or John Shelby Spong, who incorporated a liberation emphasis with his already liberal theological approach.  That is, not only can much of the Faith be dismissed as erroneous, but let's not forget the evil sexism, racism and other phobic teachings.  Or, in older days, Hart might be a Moltmann, or a Bultmann figure, or any one of the 20th Century liberal theologians of the Protestant world assuring us that large swaths of Christian teaching must simply be left behind. 

In short, Hart rejects fealty to the historical faith. He has absolutely no problem saying the Church has gotten it wrong for, oh, these last 2000 years.  Like many who tack left, he has a knack for displaying contempt for those yokels who haven't seen the light. An Orthodox writer I followed during my time with the Orthodox Church posted on Hart's book, in which Hart calls for an end to the concept of heresies (smart move), as well as the doctrine of Hell, and an even more extreme form of Theosis, or becoming like God:

Obviously not a fan.  And a bit harsh for my taste. But he's defending the Orthodox Church against the same attacks that liberal theologians have been launching at the Western Church for generations.  Attacks grounded in the same secular and theologically liberal interpretations of the Scriptures and the Church's history.  You know - you can't take the miracles seriously, the prophets were written after the fact, as were Jesus' statements suggesting foreknowledge, that Isaiah or much of the New Testament was written by anyone other than who tradition says, we can't believe there ever existed a Noah, Moses, Abraham, David (or in recent years, the apostles), or that many of the teachings of Scripture and historical Christianity are from a barbaric time of the past to be rejected.  That sort of thing.  

What is noteworthy is how Mark, who once railed against this liberal relativism where the historical Christian Faith is concerned, seems to hang on Hart's every word.  He does say he's not prepared to embrace Hart's certainty that the Church has been full of BS where the doctrine of Hell is concerned.  Nonetheless, he appears to exalt Hart, allow for that particular revised take on Church doctrine, and all while Hart is doing what Mark insisted should never, ever be done.  At least what should never, ever be confused with Catholic teaching. 

In addition, look at the comments.  Notice the casual way that commenters say they used to believe in Hell, but they're felling much better now.  Thanks goodness they threw that doctrine out the window.  See Mark's statement to me about not being able to do that.  

Yet such is post-Christian era neo-Christianity. We can actually say - with a straight face - that the first twenty centuries of Church teaching is not a deal breaker.  In our post-Christian era, it's as if we are prepared to rewrite the entire Christian faith in our image.  Or at least the image demanded by our post-Christian age.  

I can't imagine anything that will render not only the Catholic Church, but the Christian Faith as a whole, more irrelevant than the constant call to reimagine and reject anything and everything from the Faith's first 2000 years.  It doesn't seem to be working, as more and more young people are turning away and outright denouncing everything the biblical witness brought to the world.  Which makes perfect senses.  They've been taught by our society for generations that religion is a lie we tell ourselves anyway.  This merely confirms the lesson.  Plus, who's to say we're right this time?   Certainly it's questionable we're right about some invisible God in an invisible heaven with an invisible Spirit, when the Church can't seem to get a grip on the basics.  Best to use Sunday mornings to sleep in at this point.

BTW, in case you're wondering, for many Orthodox Christians, Hart was a sort of Scott Hahn, or for Protestants, a James Dobson type.  A layperson they admired because he is quite brilliant, a deep thinker, and not afraid to say what he thinks.  And for a long time, his energies were directed at stomping for adherence to the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints.  Somewhere and at some time, however, he turned a hard left, and more than one Orthodox observer has echoed the concerns and anger of the fellow above.  How and why this happened is, I'm sure, a bigger story than this little blog can speak to.  But it has caused as much concern in Orthodox circles as the rise of liberal critical rejection of the historical Faith did to us Westerners.  Or at least concern among those who take the historical teachings of the Faith seriously. 

John Pavlovitz and the necessity of bad exegesis for liberal Christianity

Now, bad exegesis happens.  And it's hardly unique to liberal Christians.  But like so many negative traits, it seems almost universal among liberals, especially liberal Christians.  That's because the liberalism they embrace rejects their Faith, its values, its beliefs, its entire worldview.  Therefore, trying to shove that square peg of Gospel into that round hole of the secular World demands some clever approaches to interpreting the Scriptures. 

John Pavlovitz demonstrates this here with a little exegetical trick call proof-texting: 

Mr. Pavlovitz knows darn well that nobody denies there were manifold sins within Sodom and Gomorrah.  The scriptural record is clear on that.  And that includes that hot topic of the ancient world, hospitality.  When my sons went through the ancient Greek literature part of their homeschooling, they concluded The Odyssey was one giant screed against bad hospitality.  

Likewise Pride is certainly a chief sin of the Faith, as demonstrated in the above scriptural passage (more on that later).  But so is sexual assault, homosexuality, and generic bad behavior, all of which were an afront to God's will for social virtues.  Here is Jude with a refresher course on some of the sins going on there that Mr. Pavlovitz seems to skip: 

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  Jude 7.

And in case we need a little mental jarring about what kind of 'fornication' was being demonstrated, let's go back to the hazy mists of Genesis:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”  Genesis 19.4-8 (emphasis mine)

Was Sodom guilty of manifold sins?  Yes.  Among these, and pointed out explicitly, was their desire to break the rules of hospitality.  And the way in which they wanted to do it was so bad, the men demanding sex with the men visiting Lot, that Lot would rather break other rules of virtue by handing his daughters over than to see such a wicked act occur.   As my ethics professor David Gushee said back in the day (c.1996), you can't deny that where the scriptural record is concerned, homosexuality is presented as the ultimate deviation from sexual morality.  To only focus on one sin of Sodom above all others is problematic.  To ignore or downplay sins explicitly detailed in the Scriptures and the traditions of the Faith, however, is far worse. 

We won't even get into the stupid 'the abomination was anti-wokeness' line.  That's not worth the effort. 

Again, when you insist I remain ignorant or embrace falsehoods in order to agree with you, I'll choose disagreeing every time. In fact, the heavy reliance on such mendacity by Christians trying to square the LGBTQ movement with a biblical worldview always made me side with the biblical world view. 

None of this is to bother with Pavlovitz's suggestion that these 'Bible thumpers' are prideful, or don't help  the poor or don't care.  In every church I ever served, those 'Bible thumpers' tried to help those in need.  But this is focusing on the exegesis he is using.  It is not wasting time addressing that typical tactic so universal among leftwing political activism that must assume malicious motives and intentions and behaviors, rather than engage in the actual subject at hand.  The bad exegeses should be enough to raise the warning flag. 

By the way, a little fun study-the-Bible moment that says a lot.  I checked the biblical text for Ezekiel that he uses (it appears to be from the always flexible New International Version).  I consulted 55 translations.  Out of 55 translations, the Hebrew word (gawohn) in Ezekiel 16.49 is translated 'Pride' or 'Prideful' 47 times.  For example, from the Revised Standard Edition:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

That's 85% of the time.  In terms of usage within the Scriptures, that word is rendered 'pride' or 'proud' more than any other way.  Yet in an odd twist of coincidence, Mr. Pavlovitz manages to grab one of the few modern translations that uses 'arrogant', rather than 'pride.'  Odd that.  Especially since this Twitter post was in defense of Pride Month.  

My favorite non-pride translation, BTW, was the New English Translation that translates the word as 'Majesty.'   Remember kiddies, know your translations!  And more importantly, pay careful attention to how those translations are used and who is using them. 

Pope Francis follows the way of mainline Protestant denominations

That is, the Church teaches it - until the World says otherwise.  It's going to be a long, dark voyage for faithful Christians in the upcoming years.  After all, even as an Evangelical I appreciated that the Catholic Church was a rock against which the waves of the latest tended to break.  Thanks largely to Pope Francis, that reputation is quickly fading. 

The remnant will remain, but the winnowing is going to be staggering.   It will be from the ashes of whatever world emerges from our genius that people will start looking at the last century or so and conclude mistakes were made, and it's time to do a Josiah.  

Modern Christianity and Roe in a nutshell: A final reflection

When  I compare the reaction to the Roe decision, I notice something.  Among those modernist Christians who have swung to the Left, there is an almost dearth of celebrations over the abolition of Roe and how it might save even one unborn life.  On the other hand, the reaction by so many traditional pro-life believers, is prayers, rejoicing, and celebrating that even one baby might be saved, or one life kept from the hellpit of our modern debauchery and decadence. In thinking on that, I have come to a sad conclusion. 

Traditional pro-life Christians try to find things like this to celebrate:

While new, modernist, post-historical Christians spend their time defending this:

I'd say that's about right.  Nothing.  Nothing I have seen in the many reactions to the Roe decision suggests there is any error in this observation.

I was given a link to this piece.  It's a somewhat whimsical comparison to the destruction of the Death Star and the end to Roe.  We know ending Roe doesn't end everything.  Nor did destroying the Death Star for that matter.  But for anyone who cares about All Life, there should at least be some happiness over even one baby not aborted.  Somehow, some woman - or birthing person - might not get an abortion.  And isn't even one baby saved worth rejoicing over? 

Apparently not.  Since almost everyone who has cozied up to the modern Left found anything to say other than a simple praise over the decision.  Except for Deacon Gredyanus, who did celebrate the decision before echoing pro-choice talking points about the problematic ramifications of the decision.  Otherwise, not a single Christian I know who has aligned with the Left said anything positive about the SCOTUS decision in a clear and explicit way.  

Not one bothered to at least say if it helps save one baby, that's a good thing.  They either posted vague, strange, ramblings (my old classmates Greg Thornbury and Russ Moore), or shifted the posts and regurgitated old pro-abortion talking points about sexist men or pro-lifers not carrying about babies.  That was all.  Even Pope Francis's response was watered down and restrained.  Not a single praise over the possibility that even one baby might be saved.  Not from Mark Shea.  Not from Sean Dailey.  Not from our very Catholic president.  Not from Dawn Eden.  Not from Simcha Fisher.  Nobody I know who swings left of center had a modicum of praise for what unborn life might be saved.  That, to me, screams volumes. 

So point and match goes to the pro-lifers.  Most I know aren't fooled over what is ahead.  They know the fight is only beginning.  They also make sure the world knows we always have been about helping the moms and the babies. Sometimes they have done this to such an extreme they echo the objection from pro-choicers.  But on the whole, they prayed, rejoiced, and took the attitude that if even one baby is saved, or this gives someone second thoughts about indulging in our modern AIDS era sex and drugs culture, then it's a big win.  

Goats.  Sheep.  It's about more than just giving a drink to someone who is thirsty.  And unless Pope Francis's little asides about there probably not being a Hell are true, I'd say the broad and narrow gates are being defined as sharply as they ever have been in the 2000 year history of the Faith. 

Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Matthew 12.33

Nobody does pop jargon like Pope Francis

So we have this:

Now that's just pretty to see, but it means nothing in modern discourse.  

We know that for liberalism, inclusive means conform to liberalism or watch your butt.  The same goes for tolerance, which usually means conform to liberalism or watch your butt.  Or diversity, which also can be translated as conform to liberalism or watch your butt.

Is that what Pope Francis means?  I realize God's love is universal, and Christ reaches out to all sinners.  Does that mean inclusive despite - anything?  One can be, do, think, or whatever and it's all inclusion and no distinction?  Does Pope Francis mean white supremacists, arms dealers, people who deny Global Warming, people who question Covid lockdowns, people who support border walls?  I don't know.  He might. 

But once again, Pope Francis uses empty pop culture terms that are common on Oprah and The View, but are of little use elsewhere.  If only he would speak like a religious leader not of the age, but merely in the age. 

Oh, and for the record, I had no idea that Jesus's teachings on the sheep and goats and wheat and chaff meant that there are no distinctions.  I thought that the point was you didn't want to be goats or chaff, not that it didn't matter to Jesus.  Did I just seriously misunderstand those teachings? 

The essential role of false presmise for the modern Left

Is demonstrated nowhere better than the latest piece by the good deacon and Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus:

Here's the entire piece.  Note the premise.  There can't be legitimate criticisms of anything done to combat racism, that's how we know how wrong conservatives are for being bothered.  Kudos for his use of Selma; a subtle tactic of the Left to suggest that not a fraction of an inch of progress has happened between Selma and today.  Nonetheless, this sort of claim is one I hear bantered about whenever anyone does anything for any leftist cause.  Any criticism of the methods or tactics is met with the above rebuttal of flawed priorities. 

The same was said last year when conservatives were a bit miffed at the thousands of peaceful protesters who left in their wake destruction, arson, desecration of churches, assaults on government buildings, attacks on innocent bystanders and the odd dead body.  Oh yeah?  Well you just keep parsing all these little terms about fighting racism when fighting racism is all that matters (read: the end justifies the means)!  That was a frequent response, just like the one above. 

Of course most conservatives I know say that racism is bad, and we don't support it.  And that includes the latest anti-white racism that is has more similarities to a Jim Crow mentality redux than anything close to antiracism.  Conservatives merely object to certain means or methods, often times the very same methods or tactics that the Left will condemn in other occurrences. 

The good deacon might be interested to know that what set most people off about Kaepernick was how this followed fast on the evisceration of Tim Tebow for daring to bring politics into the hallowed and sacred world of non-political sports.  The assault on Tebow itself was problematic since many remembered the Left's celebration of such great moments of politicizing sports as the 1968 Olympics black power salute, or the celebrated anti-war protests of Muhammad Ali.  So that it was suddenly bad for Tebow to do the same thing sounded much more like liberals were only upset because it was non-Leftist politics, not politics in general, that was the problem.  The sudden praise and adoration for Kaepernick's leftwing protests supported that suspicion and exposed the naked hypcrisy and double standards. 

Likewise, most conservatives I know uphold the right to peacefully gather and lawfully protest. They're not fans of radical protesters who speak ill of America or Americans or wish death on people like police, but they'll usually stop short of saying such protests should be banned.  They will, however, object to riots, to unlawful assaults on innocent people, on vandalizing and destroying and killing, or the naked hypocrisy and double standards applied to non-leftists and ignored for leftists.  

That's something they don't like.  Likewise, they found themselves a bit miffed by the number of leftwing advocates - including Catholics - saying that while it's a damn shame innocents died during the BLM riots peaceful protests, their deaths didst glorify the Left, so it's OK. Especially after post-war liberals spend decades preaching that violence is never, ever the answer. 

That's what they object to, oh dear deacon.  Not protesting racism. Or parsing trivial terminology. But they do object to how it might be done, as well as hypocrisy in how standards are applied.  I keep hammering Deacon Greydanus because his fall into the leftwing mire of duplicity and subterfuge is one of the more flagrant, because of the good reputation as a mature and fair analyst of current events he used to have.  While I was never a big fan of his post-modern approach to film criticism (anything with leotards and CGI superhero graphics boosts a movie by one letter grade), I found him a man of good faith willing to debate fairly and openly, even when we disagreed. 

That's why it came as a shock as he joined the growing number of left aligned believers and accused me of racism for my views on immigration before banning me from his sites.  That has become an all too common tactic for those aligning with this increasingly destructive and anti-American/anti-Christian revolution we're witnessing. Assume the inability to be a non-leftist of good will, make the accusation of grave sin demonstrated by the unwillingness to conform to the Left, and then ban before any defense can be provided.  Perhaps it's necessary.  Goodness knows, many things like false premises and denial of reality seem to be necessary to maintain any semblance of allegiance with the Left.  That is especially true for those trying desperately to keep one foot in the gathering darkness of the Left with the other foot in the light of the Gospel. 

Same sex attraction and celebate Christians

To be blunt, I don't care.  I don't particularly care what your sinful desires happen to be.  We all have them.  We all have temptations.  We all struggle with temptations.  On our better days, we overcome them.  Some heroic believers actually find ways to live a life without succumbing to their greater temptations, and more power to them.  If that's the case here, then hats off.  

What many believers don't do, however, is jump up on a table, proclaim our temptations to the world, and then seem to expect ... something?  What?  Kudos?  Praise and adoration?  Treatment as if we're the only people in history to overcome sin?  I don't know.

I do reject the post-Freudian basis of the entire Sexual Revolution, as well as its chief offspring the LGBTQ movement. That is, the idea that beyond all other things we are first and foremost defined by our sexuality.  I feel that would probably seem strange to even the most sexually broad cultures in history up until the 19th Century.  Nor do I see how embracing that view has benefited humanity over the last century or so.

Likewise, I reject the idea common in the Sexual Revolution/AIDS Era that, unlike food, water and oxygen, we must have sex at all times or we'll end up like Belloq at the end of Raiders of he Lost Ark. 

I also don't imagine the entire LGBTQ community is a giant monolith of clones.  I actually believe the reasons why people have various desires and attractions and identities might just be varied and complex, and sometimes different for different people.  As much as I risk offending the sensitivities of the progressive prophet Lady Gaga, I mean I don't think everyone with various non-heterosexual desires and identities are necessarily 'born that way.' 

Furthermore, I reject the idea that history is defined by Group A oppressing Group B, and in this case no Jew in Auschwitz ever experienced true terrors of hate and evil like a wealthy celebrity in Hollywood who has same sex attraction.  Or at least this template is true for now when convenient; subject to change at a moment's notice when no longer convenient. 

Oh, and I also believe gender exists and sexuality and childbirth are somehow related. Call me a radical. 

As for the young woman above, I couldn't care less what her inner temptations are.  Nor upon hearing of them, since she apparently insists we all hear of them, do I define her by those temptations.  May God not treat us as we increasingly treat ourselves in order to justify aligning with the catastrophes of modern progressive agendas and ideologies. 

Whatever her struggles or anyone's struggles are, that's for them.  If she seeks help and openness about her struggles with others, then there are times and places for that.  If she didn't run about declaring her desires and attractions, however, people would have no reason to think anything about her.  After all, if she's celibate it's not as if she's out sexually involved with women or marrying them or anything.  

Yet this is, and has been, a common tactic among progressives for years.  Jump up, kick down our doors, declare something new to be true, insist we all think about that something the way they insist we think about it, and then accuse us of somehow imposing our values on them or judging them if we don't.  It's stupid and false, and yet I've seen it used for decades to devastating effect. 

Russell Moore and the new American Church

Russell Moore joins Beth Moore in abandoning the Southern Baptist Convention. From those I know who are still in the SBC, the general response will not be weeping and gnashing of teeth among those he leaves behind. 

You see, contrary to the observation of Deacon Greydanus, who has showered Dr. Moore with great praise, as well as others who have lifted him up to his opulent office in Manhattan, most I know in the SBC who follow the news have no beef with Moore per se.  If he chooses to oppose Trump, so be it.  If he wants to hang at gay wedding receptions, that's on him, though many think that's a step away from compromise and sin.  The problems the convention is facing, they say, are problems that need addressed - together. 

They wouldn't care so much if Moore didn't come off as, well, a snob.  A man who consistently says, "Hey World, look at those loser racist misogynist Baptist deplorables over there, let's get'em.'  If he didn't constantly talk of those who disagree with him as if they are a bunch of stupid, bigoted reprobates who simply don't see his obviously superior position and infallible standards that should be the measure for all others to follow.  That is what set most of them off. 

I knew Russ in seminary.  Not personally in a close friendship way, but enough to notice some things.  He was part of the Mohler revolution.  If he really loved Catholics as he has said, or despised the fundamentalism that accompanied that bold change in Seminary life, including the belief that women do belong in the home, he kept such thinking to himself.  He was never one who suffered from a disproportionate level of humility, so those who criticize his high and mighty contempt for Baptists who disagree with Russ are easy to sympathize with. 

Like Beth Moore before him, who chalked up all criticisms of her ministry as being the result of misogynist men who displayed their woman hate by pointing out she was easy on the eyes, Russ has bolted from the Convention that made him one of those lucky few who live in wealth and luxury for the Prince of Peace.  With his departure, he bemoans the hatred and attacks on his family by all those white supremacists who seemed to have eluded me in my Baptist ministry days.

Oh, I saw racism of course. Really.  Real, honest racism.  I once was asked to fill in at a church one Sunday.  I delivered a message that included  a story, courtesy of Tony Campolo, about a young man coming to realize the humanity of a single mother in the inner city; a mother who happened to be African American.  After the service, a family invited me to dine with them at their Sunday dinner in the best manner of Baptist eating.  During the meal, I was gently informed that if I come back, I might not want to use Black people as the center of an illustration.

So I'd be stupid and a liar to say there was no racism.  Sure there was.  Good old white racism against non-whites, but back before racism became the all defining, unforgivable monolithic sin that a growing number of religious leaders now admit it is.  Of course, when working among the inner city missions, I encountered anti-white racism among some black pastors I met.  Among some women I knew there was prejudice as well, including anti-male bigotry.  There was bigotry and sin across the board, from people I knew overseas to those at home - all of those people being human, sin happens.  

But Russ has bought the Leftist bug that there are only certain all defining and all encompassing sins based on skin color and political party as defined by the modern Left.  His contempt for those targeted by the modern Left, while accepting of others who toe the leftwing line, is what made so many in the convention upset.  I don't think there will be many tears shed at his leaving. 

And if Moore, or the author of the piece, or the good Deacon Greydanus, yearn for a time when God seizes the crushing power of Rome and Caesar to finally stamp out those who stand in the way of the New Left and its new American church, then we'll just have to see. Given what the new Left stands for, I don't think I'll sweat it.  If the courts and the State come after us, as some apparently are hoping for, it likely won't be at the behest of the Almighty, unless the first 2000 years of Christianity were as disastrously wrong about almost everything as some would have us think. 

Pope Francis and Liberation Theology

Yes, Pope Francis appears to be heavily influenced by, if not a card carrying member of, Liberation Theology. 

Now that's a term jostled about quite frequently on the Internet.  And I'm not saying it's the only thing that informs his views.  But in my ministry days, I had the opportunity of meeting with and studying with several who had worked in or served Latin American missions, and I picked up a few things about that particular brand of theology. 

Contrary to popular Catholic belief, Protestants - Evangelicals, too! - had individuals trying to put their own spins on that decidedly Catholic phenomenon of Latin American Liberation Theology.  And this doesn't count the other use of the term: Liberation Theologies.  Those are theological schools that seize upon the ideal of 'liberation' as the defining prism through which to understand the Gospel and then apply it to various demographics: feminist theology, black theology, gay theology and so on and so forth and what have you.  

The template for these applications is always the same: X Group is defined by being oppressed, generally by the historical Christian Faith and Western Civilization.  Therefore, we can rethink almost everything when it comes to how the Christian Faith should be applied and lived out within that group.  After all, we have Christianity as defined by the oppressors (or the winners) and therefore can make certain assumptions about how wrong its historical teachings turned out to be.  After all, 'history is written by the winners' is usually a way of saying 'the history we have is wrong.' 

So, for instance, regarding Feminist Theology.  Pride, we all learned, comes before a fall.  Pride is one of the mortal sins.  Pride in some circles is the sin, the capstone sin, the sin out of which all sin grows.  But not for the woman embracing Liberation Feminist Theology.  In that framework, Pride is a virtue to be striven for, not rejected.  It's humility that is the sin. The woman has always been oppressed by the man; forced to be servile and grovel at the man's feet.  Humility was a tool of oppression and victimization.  Therefore, it's incumbent upon the woman to rise up, throw off her chains, and embrace pride, pride in herself and her womanhood.  Humility for the woman, it turns out, is the real sin. Pride is the virtue. 

It goes on like that, depending on the group in question.  And this thinking was widely popular in the 90s when I entered ministry and studied in seminary.  Whole books were written expounding on these ideals.  And they all had at their roots the same thinking that defined so much of that Catholic movement known as Latin American Liberation Theology.

At its simplest, LALT is Marxism with a Christian spin.  It takes, to varying degrees, the teachings and ideals of Karl Marx, filtered through a few communist lenses, and applies them as the base coat upon which the various colors of the Christian palette can then be applied.  

The emphasis is on economic and social oppression of the poor and the marginalized.  All of history is the rich and the powerful oppressing the poor and the helpless.  Everything in the Gospels lends itself to this reading.  Jesus is the Messiah of the poor, the outcast, the downtrodden.  Jesus came to bring Good News to the poor.  Jesus calls down curses on the rich, but assures the poor of their everlasting bliss. And on and on.

Because the problems of humanity are best understood through the prism of economic injustice, so are the solutions.  The degree to which various Catholic Liberation theologians emphasise wordly, economic and political solutions for salvation seems to vary. Some come off as almost atheistic, seeming to have little to no patience for any traditional reading of the Gospels that dwells on more than the financial here and now.  Others talk a big talk about heaven, hell (the place where capitalists go), and spiritual salvation, but always through that all important template of economic and social justice.

One minister who loomed large in my day was Ronald J. Sider.  His book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger didn't need to be read.  The title spoke for itself.  He was quite the darling among left leaning and progressive professors and theologians I knew. He also was a big proponent of the Liberation Theology movement sweeping much of Christianity in those days.  By today's standards, he comes off as a radical fundamentalist.  I believe he even opposed laws that would make religious groups support gay marriage and abortion.

But in the 90s, he was as left as you could get.  That is until I read an article some years ago that suggested he had begun to distance himself from the Liberation Theologies he originally embraced.  The article pointed to a lecture he gave in the early 00s.  It didn't suggest he was abandoning the whole Liberation Theology movement.  But in his lecture he delivered, he pointed out some flaws and problems. 

The biggest was the obsession with economics and sociopolitical movements and solutions as the end all to everything.  Likewise was the tendency for the Gospel of God, spirit and eternity to be lost in the shuffle.  That was what a professor I had who had worked alongside Liberation theologians while he was in South America also noticed. 

He once quipped that Liberation Theology was the best boon Evangelical missionaries had in Latin America. You didn't need to evangelize.  You opened the door and in they came.  Many had grown tired of the worldly and material focus of their Catholic leaders who only wanted to expound on Karl Marx, rather than Luke or John.  Being less worldly and secular than their European and American counterparts, those South American parishioners were hungry for the spiritual world and still believed strongly in the supernatural element of the Faith.  This element was lacking in a Church that increasingly sounded more material and worldly than the old USSR. 

That professor, Dr. Hughes, also pointed out a problem that Ron Sider echoed in his lecture.  There was  almost an anal obsession about the sociopolitical and economic oppression by the West as the end all problem of everything.  Let anything happen, and it was those rascally capitalists and Western Democracies.  Let a woman be raped or a child kidnapped?  The capitalists did it.  Let a harvest fail or a disease hit, and you can bet those capitalists were behind it.  Let families suffer or struggle with doubt or fear or sin, and the bold Liberation theologian was there to remind them to blame the Western Democracies and those ever problematic capitalists. 

Somehow, as good as this may have sounded to those Catholic Liberation theologians, it didn't seem to work for their flocks.  As much as many in South America are not fans of the Western Democracies or capitalism, they were sure some things in life had nothing to do with either.  And yet, my professor explained, those leaders who embraced that brand of Liberation Theology often developed a sort of tunnel vision; a singular vision that reduced everything else, including any parts of the Gospel not dealing with the poor and money, to nothing more than a dashed off afterthought. 

All of this came back to me as I read Pope Francis's recent statements about the Covid criss and capitalism's failures.  Much of what the article says is what I remember those who had experienced Liberation Theology describing back in the day.  There is only one real problem in the world: Capitalism and the economic oppression of the poor.  There is one solution: a brotherhood of man that throws off the chains of economic and sociopolitical oppression.  Our religions and confessions of faith appear almost irrelevant to our salvation here, or in the hereafter.  It's in our calls for economic justice and that Marxist dream of a global economic revolution where salvation lies.

I have no idea how much Pope Francis is a student of all this.  I just know that when he talks, he sounds a lot like those I knew, who had experienced Liberation Theology first hand, described about that strain of theological thought.  

I can't remember the last time Pope Francis suggested the world needs Jesus, or that Christianity has, as a religious confession, a unique claim on the Truth.  But he is never shy in condemning the Western Democracies by name (who is he to judge?), nor is he slow to elevate the cause and solutions to our problems as being about the economy stupid.  If he wasn't a serious student of Liberation Theology, it's either a coincidence of all coincidences, or some of it apparently rubbed off. 

The Health and Wealth gospel, Liberal style

Ah yes, the Health and Wealth gospel.  We know it well.  And sometimes we know it by other names too.  You've heard them: Health and Wealth, or Name It and Claim It, or Blab It and Grab It.   The style is well known, and generally exists within Protestant circles, off the branch loosely designated Evangelicalism.  It's characteristics are a somewhat fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the Scriptures, with a healthy dose of modern worldly priorities, like money, wealth, success, big cars, bigger houses, or smaller houses but a life fulfilled by being fulfilled and thinking well of yourself for having a fulfilled life.  To that end, God exists to make sure this happens.   In some ways, Rick Warren't A Purpose Driven Life was simply a more theologically grounded example of this, whereby the star of the book is still me, and the end result of things is my life having purpose.

Which is really the big heresy of the movement. God is reduced to more or less a grand, cosmic Santa Clause, who wants us to be really super-happy, and will do whatever it takes for us to be happy.  Oh to be sure, no H&W preacher would condone greed or corruption or narcissism or selfishness.  Not that they will call out such things by name (unless socially acceptable to do so).  They will simply insist that our fulfillment it best served by a happy, feel good life, and God's just the god to make it happen.  Think Smilin' Joel Olsteen.

Now, anyone who had more than basic Christian Theology 101 can see the glaring flaws in this.  This is a not an approach to Christianity that works well with Matthew 9.23-24.  Not that they would deny that.  They would, again, merely see taking up one's cross as a means to an end, and that end being a happy and fulfilled life now.

Because of its popularity, especially in America, this approach has come under some  heavy fire.  I had people in my churches that lapped this sort of thing up with a spoon.  They didn't always take kindly to those who suggested that God didn't create everything in order for me to have an awesome life defined by the latest definitions of awesome.  Many more conservative and traditional - and in recent years, post-conservative - Evangelicals and Protestants spent more than a few trees writing screeds against this perversion of the Gospel of the poor and meek.   We won't even get into how those more liberal and progressive Christians have manhandled the H&W approach to Jesus.

But here's another consideration to kick around.  In looking back at my sojourn with Protestantism, and the fairly large number of progressive minded Christian leaders I rubbed shoulders with, it dawned on me that, in many ways, most of liberal Christianity is simply a variation on the H&W mindset, from a  different angle.

Years ago I served as an associate on the staff of a large, flagship church within the state convention (that's like an Evangelical diocese).   The senior pastor was someone I did admire.   He was no friend of the Al Mohler revolution.  It was also clear that his political leanings swerved left of the center lane.  Nonetheless, I found him insightful, honest and generally a good guy.

So it came as a shock when the subject of abortion came about in a class he was teaching. Since he was the father of two daughters (or was it three?), someone brought the issue of abortion up to him and where he would stand as a dad.  He answered truthfully, as he was wont to do.  He said that if one of his daughters got pregnant, he would support - perhaps even encourage - an abortion since why should she have her life and all its plans and potential derailed by an unwanted pregnancy?

Wow.  I mean, wow.  Note there was no poor, starving girl driven to abortion for food in the equation.  There was no talk of rape or anything where sexist, abusive misogynists were concerned.  His answer echoed what most girls I knew in college said about abortion: I want to be able to jump on any Tom and Harry's you-know-what and still have what I want in life, and that's success, career and a life of happy fulfillment. He didn't even pretend to wrap it up in that small percentage of abortion cases that dominate 99% of the abortion debate.  He said why should anything stand in the way of his daughters having the good life as they define it?

Now, I ask you.  How is that less "Health and Wealth" than anything Creflo Dollar would preach?  How is that any less 'it's all about your life being awesome based on your own desires' than anything Tammy Faye would say to the cameras?  Why is that any different than Joel Olsteen celebrating the Babe born in a manger from his yacht and upper class life style?

Indeed, how many progressive Christians - even Catholics - echo the same thing, but from a different vantage point?  You've heard them.  Why shouldn't people on food stamps, even if it's because of the life they have chosen, not be able to have their share of steak and caviar?  Why shouldn't I be able to have sex with who I desire?   If a woman gets pregnant, and given the horrible injustices and sexism of our patriarchal, misogynist culture, why shouldn't we assume they make the unfortunate, but completely logical, choice of aborting their babies rather than not have sex?  Heck, why shouldn't women be able to put themselves and their interests first above all other priorities?  In short, why shouldn't I be able to have my cake, eat it to, and let others do the dishes?  In other words, a life of awesome fulfillment based upon my particular definition of worldly awesome. 

How are any of those any less 'Name it and Claim It' than that old H&W gospel we all love to hate?  In fact, so many of those on the Left who are quick to blast someone like Jim Baker, or modern Smilin' Joel, stand idly by when Christians on the left side of the aisle convey the same message where sex, narcissism, abortion, and other more fleshly pursuits reign supreme.  They might miss the fact that the same mentality - it's really about the here and now more than the hereafter - pervades progressive Christianity every bit as much, if not more, than it does those limo riding, yacht sailing H&W ministers and their flocks.

It should also help us realize that for all the contempt and loathing those on the Left have for Olsteenanity, much - if not most - of modern, liberal Christianity is based on the idea that my life is what it's about, and we'll merely have to modify the Gospel to make sure it happens my way.   Because, in the end, for all of its posturing, liberal Christianity is no better suited to Matthew 9.23-24 than their more flagrant, and noticeable, Health and Wealth counterparts at a mega-church.

The soulless heresy of liberal Christianity

First, a clarification of terms.  To me, the term 'Leftist Christianity', or 'Christian Leftists', denotes those who are within the Faith, who hold to various orthodox doctrines (bodily Resurrection, Virgin Birth, Jesus actually existed), and yet filter these through slavish devotion to the Marxist Left.  Like old conservative Evangelicals were accused of doing with Republican politics, so these allow for no spiritual affirmation or growth unless it is done before the altar of the political Left.

'Liberal Christianity', however, is what I use to reference that branch of Christianity that can scarcely be called Christianity.  Baptized in the name of Rudolf Bultmann and devoted to the last couple centuries of critical scholarship, there is often little remaining of the Faith other than a name.  An excellent example of this comes from an interview with the Reverend Serene Jones, who heads the uber-liberal Union Theological Seminary, whose religious musings are as bona fide heretical as you can get.  You can read the whole thing here. 

Key excerpts that leap out at me are these:

"I find the virgin birth a bizarre claim. It has nothing to do with Jesus’ message. The virgin birth only becomes important if you have a theology in which sexuality is considered sinful. It also promotes this notion that the pure, untouched female body is the best body, and that idea has led to centuries of oppressing women."

Of course it's a vast, male conspiracy.  Or this little Q&A:

"What happens when we die? 

I don’t know! There may be something, there may be nothing. My faith is not tied to some divine promise about the afterlife. …" 

The hope of the agnostic.  Or this:

"For me, the message of Easter is that love is stronger than life or death. That’s a much more awesome claim than that they put Jesus in the tomb and three days later he wasn’t there. For Christians for whom the physical resurrection becomes a sort of obsession, that seems to me to be a pretty wobbly faith."

For most of liberal Christianity, about 90%-95% of the Bible is false, wrong, lies, or fairy tales.  That includes, by the way, Jesus' own message.  As much as they cling to 'if Jesus didn't say it, it isn't important', the fact is they're just as willing to cast aside what Jesus is reported to have said when needed.  I saw that happen in debates about homosexuality back in the day.  Something Jesus said about God making man and woman to be joined together?  Bah.  Just discard that as a later interpolation (with no evidence needed of course).  

Calling this Christianity is like calling the New England Patriots a baseball team.  It means nothing.  It is a form of Gnosticism; a sort of 'I'm just spiritual enough to know everyone else got it wrong, and since my faith is based on my faith, nothing can happen to change it.'  

The good news is that, like most heresies, those who embrace this tend to dwindle away.  The denominations following this line of denial are dying.  It's not really a question of if, it's merely a question of when they will cease to exist. The sad part is that it affirms the non-belief of the world at large.  Many souls reject the Gospel with the firm stamp of 'Liberal Christians approve this message.'

I thought this was appropriate to blog about on what is Orthodoxy's Spy Wednesday, the hour of shadows, when Satan enters Judas, and a disciple sells the Son of God for thirty pieces of silver. 

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.  1 John 2:22-23

Dear Deacon Greydanus

Only if you focus a like amount on the American Indians who are as upset, if not more, over Warren's apparent desire to exploit minority status for political gain.  Otherwise, the 'Who cares about truth or morals, but Trump!' dodge just won't cut it.

New Prolife Christians comment on movie about Kermit Gosnell

Meanwhile, Don McClarey gives his take.  I typically don't see movies in the theater, so I'll wait for it.  I'm not expecting much coverage of it other than by those who can already see the story for what it is.  Like the NPL Christians, I've not seen it discussed once in the MSM. 

Allies of the New Prolife Christian

Here:

Yep.  And that's not even extreme.  Today, in America, it's becoming mainstream.  Remember, the New York Times: Flagship of America's national press.

That we can assume someone is guilty because of skin color, gender (which suddenly is biological again), religion, political affiliation or national origin is as bigoted as Jim Crow. 

It's also a case study in how people embrace the evils of their age.  Those embracing a Jim Crow mentality against whites. just because the movers and shakers happen to be doing so. would likely have embraced the same against blacks a hundred years ago for the same reason.

Defending injustice for the sake of keeping abortion legal

Mark Shea fires a parting shot, dredging up his eternal war with the pro-life movement by trotting out his usual 'damned if they do/damned if they don't' attacks.

Of course Mark leaves out the fact that many conservatives were unhappy with Kavanaugh's pick as SCOTUS nominee precisely because they feared he wouldn't be as strong on moral issues like abortion.  They understood that, in this day, no hard-line conservative would ever be allowed to replace a swing vote.  Nonetheless, many would have preferred someone else.  They rallied behind him this last week only because they could tell a slanderous character assassination when they saw it, and were defending the rule of law, due process and opposing bearing false witness.

Nonetheless, Mark's "because FDR isn't a saint, I'm with Hitler" approach to the abortion issue necessitates his ignoring that key piece of evidence.  Which makes sense.  After all, he joined the abortion Left in trying to destroy a likely innocent man and family in order to serve the Democrats, so sweating evidence is likely not a big priority at this point.

But unlike Mark, many who were not thrilled with Kavanaugh were nonetheless not ready to watch an innocent man destroyed so that abortion may be kept legal.  The same thing was true of Urban Meyer at Ohio State University.  With mobs of feminists and journalists calling for his termination because he didn't act properly when his wife founded that the ex-wife of an assistant coach was claiming domestic abuse, many Ohio State fans rallied around Meyer.  Not because they love him, contrary to press reports.  I can assure you, they don't.  Ohio State fans are not known for their loyalty to coaches.  But because if he's going to be canned, they want it due to his job performance, not because he fell victim to the Leftist witch hunt du jour.

But again, this is Mark Shea.  The rest of his screed is typical.  I continue this breaking of my ban on Patheos because, sadly, Mark is hardly alone among the Christian, including Catholic, spectrum.  If the Left says it's time to end due process and presumption of innocence, we've seen many believers more than willing to comply.  I fear if the Left declares an end to democracy and the establishment of a police state, we'll see far too many crosses and rosaries in the crowd that will be cheering it on.

BTW, compare to Rod Dreher.   Rod is definitely pro-life, and laments the fact that Kavanaugh wasn't the best choice from a conservative, pro-life point of view.  Yet he was willing to support Kavanaugh because of the sheer morality, justice and truth behind opposing the destruction of an innocent man.  Mark, on the other hand, joined in the assaults on a likely innocence man, floating whatever accusations no matter how ludicrous dating back to Kavanaugh's teens, that the party of abortion could be sustained.

You decide which is the better way.

Catholics embrace the Left's new puritanism

The utter hypocrisy of the modern Left in a nutshell.  Has humanity ever produced such a duplicitous, amoral movement as the modern Left?

Here, from a FB comment:

Odd how those my age (high school, early 80s) were all but pressured by liberal culture to do the very thing that the side that pressured us to do them is now condemning. The left gave a generation the Animal House standard of living. At the same time fighting against ever looking at someone's past or treating juveniles like adults. In a matter of days - a matter of hours - those decades of morals were completely turned on their head and we learned that the slightest deviation from a puritanical lifestyle when you were an adolescent three decades ago could be used to destroy your life. What would the boys of Delta House think?

Yep.  My head is still spinning.  And not just the secular Left, but its slavish devotees among the Christians, including Catholics, are declaring it the retroactive morality:

I hope whatever the outcome parents everywhere use the event to sit their children down, boys and girls, and point out how stupid actions when you're young can get you decades in the future. Boys will be boys as long as they are NOT raised to be civilized men. Notice, it seems to have zero effect on character to be educated in a "christian" school. Mark Shea will occasionally suggest home schooling. It looks like a good alternative to the Jesuits, wot? The parents of the judge seem to have not raised him, his fellow inmates did, there as well as at Yale. Maybe he is repentant, if so, fine. Parents who don't correct this kind of behavior or prevent it aren't parents. Girls: Stay the hell away from such "parties" and such boys. Period. Don't be stupid. Don't be like Dr. Ford or the judge either. Both have had their lives dragged through a sewer. They have provide us with good examples of mistakes to learn from, now do the learning.

That's a comment from Mark Shea's Kavanaugh hit-piece.

When I first became Catholic and entered the Catholic blogosphere, one of the big stories was a World Youth Day celebration.  Apparently pictures emerged of kids sleeping together, stripping down to their undies, laying with each other in tents and sleeping bags, no parental presence.  And the Catholics, including Mark, were outraged at such puritanical objections!  Who cares if the kids are fast and loose?  Who cares if girls are a bit sexed up?  Who cares if youth are partying a bit?  We all do!  What are you, some freak puritan (followed by frequent quotes by Chesterton about how repulsive and dull those lousy puritans were)?

But of course, that was yesterday's morality when it didn't help the Left.  Now, if you weren't more pure than a puritan when you were in high school, your butt belongs to the Leftist state. And if you're married to, or a child of, a non-puritan adolescent from decades ago, you deserve to have your life ruined.

Oh, and per good old Bob at Mark's site, any deviation from a puritan youth will also show just how reprehensible and pathetic were your wretched parents, who also stand accused.  Don't hate the puritans.  They were never so repressed, much less burdened by such flagrant double standards of obvious political expediency.

The political Left is a jealous god that demands blood sacrifice.  I'm stunned at how many Christians, including Catholics, are proud to bow before the altar and provide it.

You can't make this stuff up

So a well known LGBT advocate is leaving her pastorate, to be replaced by an openly homosexual pastor who is in a relationship with a gay hairdresser who moonlights as a drag queen named Fruitbomb.  That's the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America for you.

I kid you not.  Go to the link. I don't think it can be called Christian anymore.  Maybe it can.  I don't know.  Many mainline denominations are producing people who have long ago left what seemed anything close to being Christian.  Probably more heresy than anything.

They could be good people who are doing this of course. I knew a dear, sweet lady who pastored a United Church of Christ back in my ministry days. We often chatted and sometimes sat together in regional meetings and ecumenical conferences.  Nonetheless, she sometimes pondered what is so wrong with Gnosticism, or whether it's presumptuous of us to believe in some personal God who cares about us on an individual level.  I used to wonder what her sermons sounded like on a Sunday morning.

Of course these are extremes of what I fear is a pandemic infecting much of the modern Christian Faith. I fear, in the end, that a great many people from the top down just don't believe it anymore.  We've been blinded by science maybe.  Or after a century or so of technology, industry, world war and atomic power, we've just lost a God centered model of creation.  Or Bultmann was right.  Whatever, I fear few even believe in Creation traditionally understood, and merely accept an atheistic universe model with a God stamp slapped on it.

There are many reasons for this I'm sure.  But I don't know if there has been such a crisis within the Faith since its inception.  This isn't to downplay the many crises it's had over the centuries.  It's to say that the Faith is being assailed on almost every front, and the question isn't which doctrines we jettison to keep up with the latest, but how many will be left once the latest round of assaults are replaced by the next round.