In Which Chesterton and Phil Robertson Mix

So much ink has already been spilled about Duck Dynasty and A&E that spilling a drop more could very well result in some kind of cosmic implosion. Besides, by most internet standards, I’m inexcusably late to the party – the guest everyone sniffs at, as they wonder why he bothered showing up at all.

But what the heck. I’m going to show up and spill ink anyway.

Chesterton observed that “when somebody wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people have regarded as a social decency, the very first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent.” Hence in the war on marriage, we find ourselves confronted with an ever evolving Lexicon of Politically Correct Newspeak, jam-packed with nice-sounding words and phrases for that which is utterly disgusting.

As a culture, we wolf this sort of thing down. Why? Because the aberrancy of sin is always easier to countenance under a thick layer of psuedonymous goop. Sodomy is no exception. We’d rather not think about what the homosexual act actually involves, so we avoid anything that might remind us of it, even accidentally. We go out of our way to tippytoe. And when everybody tippytoes, the man who puts his foot down is promptly knifed in the back (most often by the purveyors of tolerance).

Phil Robertson put his foot down, and everyone heard the crunch. To hell with the eggshells. To hell with the Keepers Thereof. All our carefully-manicured genteelism – all the euphemisms we put in place to protect ourselves from what is – all of that just took a load of birdshot in the hindquarters, and the shooter was a redneck from Louisiana.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

To Hell With Marriage… Oh Wait, There Is No Hell

On Sunday, former pastor and author Rob Bell expressed his support for gay “marriage” during a forum at Grace Cathedral, the Episcopal Cathedral of the Diocese of California.

“I am for marriage,” he said. “I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think … we need to affirm people wherever they are.” Continue reading —>

Frankly, I’m only surprised it didn’t happen sooner. Anyone who has paid any attention to Bell’s career over the past couple of years will hardly be flabbergasted at this latest bit of funny business. He’s been retreating from orthodoxy for some time now, with the steadiness of Aesop’s tortoise – only quite a bit faster.

The word ‘love’ holds a prominent place in his vocabulary, yet it lacks any kind of biblical mooring. It’s merely the sentimentalism of postmodern times, weak-kneed and nauseatingly vapid: the kind of love that “affirms” you where you are, even if where you are is on the road to hell.

But of course, I have forgotten: Bell isn’t so sure about the whole hell thing. And if there is no hell, no place of eternal punishment for unrepentant sinners, then why is repentance such a big deal anyway? Love wins, don’t you know.

So I’ll hang with Jesus, and you hang with sin, ’cause we’ll all wind up in heaven in the end.

Bell talks a lot about God’s love. But what about God’s holiness? What about His justice? What about His fierce and eternal wrath again sin? God’s attributes are not, to borrow the words of Timothy Tennent, “like separate petals on a flower. God’s love is a just love. God’s mercy is a holy mercy, and so forth.” You cannot proclaim them in isolation. You cannot tell me of God’s love without also telling me of His wrath. The one has no meaning without the other.

The evangelical perspective, says Bell, is “narrow, politically intertwined, [and] culturally ghettoized.” We need to turn away from such “destructive” policies. We need to “die or adapt.”

Die or adapt. This, in rank opposition to the words of St. Paul: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

We are not called to adapt, Mr. Bell. We are called to stand fast (Philippians 4:1). Nor are we called to die, at least not in the way that you mean it. Christ’s Church will endure. He will have His Bride, and she will be spotless.

You would have us abandon Scripture, Mr. Bell, for the sake of cultural Brownie points. God and His Word must bend at the behest of our postmodern whim. “Cast your Bibles to the wind and wed the spirit of the age!”

But then, as Chesterton would say, “He who weds the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower.”

Last Time I Checked

A few thoughts on the brouhaha over Chick-Fil-A:

Several weeks ago, Mr. Dan Cathy was asked where he stood on same sex marriage. He didn’t rant or rave. He didn’t fire back with wrathful invective. He didn’t say that homosexuals would be refused service (or even employment) at Chick-Fil-A restaurants. He simply stated that he stood by the traditional one man/one woman definition of marriage. And everyone went batty.

In the mean time, Chicago alderman Joe Moreno (supported by Mayor Tom Menino) boasted about “denying Chick-Fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward.” His reason? Dan Cathy’s “ignorance.” Ah, we all say. Dan Cathy’s ignorance. So that’s the reason.

Just one thing… what, exactly, is he ignorant about? Health and safety regulations? How the permit process works? Zoning? How to properly make a chicken sandwich? Fry a batch of waffle fries?

Nah. Dan Cathy knows about all these things. He just happens to be “ignorant” of the politically-correct and socially-acceptable position on homosexuality.

And everybody, in unison, cries, How dare he! Tar and feather the bastard! 

Can someone get me a napkin? I just choked on the coffee I was drinking.

Now, maybe I’m delusional, but last time I checked, we lived in the U.S. of A. Freedom of speech and all that. Not the dang Soviet Union.

Support Chick-Fil-A Day was an opportunity to stick up for a company that supported traditional (i.e. biblical) family values. It was also about standing against corrupt bureaucrats who think they have the right to punish those who don’t agree with them.

Mark Steyn says it well and forcefully,

It’s bad enough that in a supposedly free society you can’t sell a chicken sandwich to your fellow citizen without buying a bazillion permits from the state. If they can prevent you from selling a chicken sandwich because they don’t like your opinions, then what can’t they do to you?

Who the hell is Tom Menino to say you can’t sell chicken in Boston unless you agree with him? Who the hell is Murray Geiger-Adams to say you can’t tell a joke in Vancouver unless he approves it? Until more citizens of free nations are willing to say to statist hacks “Who the hell do you think you are?,” liberty will continue to bleed.

Bullying… At An Anti-Bullying Conference

From Todd Starnes:

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

Writer and speaker Dan Savage was apparently asked to give a speech on anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference. Instead, it turned into a “pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

See the video clip below (language warning):

There’s so much in this tirade that ought to be addressed. So much. For now, however, I’ll content myself with making one observation: isn’t it a little ironic that this anti-bullying activist is using the very tactics he supposedly decries?

Linden Wolfe observes,

No one feels bullying is more wrong than I do (I know what it feels like to be bullied). So for all of us, Dan Savage included, I thought I’d share some information from a US Government website on bullying (Bullying Definition | StopBullying.gov). According to this group there are 3 types of bullying; verbal, social, and physical. Here are the some examples of the first 2:

Verbal bullying is saying or writing mean things. Verbal bullying includes:

• Teasing
• Name-calling
• Inappropriate sexual comments
• Taunting
• Threatening to cause harm

Social bullying, sometimes referred to as relational bullying, involves hurting someone’s reputation or relationships. Social bullying includes:

• Leaving someone out on purpose
• Telling other children not to be friends with someone
• Spreading rumors about someone
• Embarrassing someone in public

Based on this, I think it’s safe to say that Dan Savage was acting the bully or, at the very least, using bullying tactics. Yes, there is such a thing as righteous indignation but I don’t think this tirade qualifies.

Nope. Nothing righteous about it at all. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Matthew 12:34)

Condemning Condemnation

It always makes me laugh when, during the course of a debate, one of the participants resorts to the “Condemning Condemnation” card. You know. Like when someone says that such-and-such is wrong and their opponent immediately declares, “But it’s wrong for you to judge!”

Wait… what?

One of my favorite parts in Gregory Koukl’s Tactics is when he shares a conversation where this sort of fallacious argument reared its ugly head. He promptly nips it in the bud.

Lee: I’m not a homosexual, but I think it’s wrong to condemn anybody for anything.

Greg: Why are you condemning me, then?

Lee: What?

Greg: I said, why are you condemning me if you think it’s wrong to condemn people?

Lee: I’m responding to the fact that a lot of Christians condemn people.

Greg: I understand. And it sounds like you’re condemning me because I just condemned homosexuality as wrong.

Lee: Yes, I am. You are supposed to love everybody.

Greg: Wait a minute. You’re not listening to yourself. You just said it’s wrong to condemn people. And now you admit you’re condemning me. So I’m asking, why are you doing the very same thing that you say is wrong when I do it?

Lee: No, I’m not. [Lee pauses as the light slowly begins to dawn.] Okay, let’s put it this way. I’m not condemning you, I’m reprimanding you. Is that better?

Greg: Then my comments about homosexuals are simple reprimands as well.