When historians look back at some of the moral currents of the early 21st
century, they will call it an “era of anthropological confusion.” It is
good that we are no longer imprisoning consenting adults for private
activity and that there is robust dialogue of gender and sexual identity
have forthright opinions of sexual identity and morality; however,
these are not the focus of this essay. Persuading folks that disagree
with my Christian convictions is better done in civil, personal dialogue
or in lengthy communication. Here I want to argue that all sides of the
current disputes on gender and sexual identity and practice are missing
an important factor as they seek to persuade, or, in some cases, coerce
conformity to their understanding of what is moral and tolerable.
mistake our entire culture is making on sexuality is profound: we have
made Eros the Almighty and sexual pleasure the defining characteristic
of human identity. This is tragically deficient anthropology, reducing
identity to one’s current sexual proclivities. There are great
complexities involved in how people feel and think about gender and sex,
and no one should feel marginalized. We do, however, need to dialogue
on these issues, especially regarding the education of children, without
labeling and libeling those who disagree with us.
agape love is our starting point, then other loves will find their
place. Agape compels thoughtfulness concerning our loyalties and
pleasures, our motives and our practices. At this juncture I am only
calling for thoughtfulness about sacrificial love. Agape sees people as
made in God’s image, worthy of dignity and respect. Agape love helps
people not objectify others or abuse people for pleasure. Friendships
rooted in mutual interests are possible without the intrusion of
unwelcome erotic demands. Comradery in a cause can include people of all
orientations and persuasions as they sacrifice for the common good.
are more than our erotic passions, wonderful as they are (in boundaries
of morality and mutuality). Choosing self-restraint is not repression,
but a loving decision. People of all persuasions can offer their best
efforts toward the common good. There is still a place for debating
gender and sexual issues in an environment of love and respect. Even
where we radically disagree, a commitment to sacrificial love allows us
to unite for noble causes.
we stop bowing before idols of immediate pleasure and choose noble
pathways of love and service? Can we debate without rancor and stop
labeling and libeling? Our preferred future depends upon a social
compact of principled liberty for all.
Pause. Breathe. Pray. Love your neighbor through your good work and acts of kindness. Read history. Stay alert to opportunities to serve. Foster justice. Turn off the media for a day and discover normal blood pressure.
Freedom of conscience is the first freedom.
Yes, I do want all around me to place their faith in Jesus Christ. This is an invitation, not intolerance, a voluntary act welcoming a believer into a new identity and sociology, not a political party or enslaving ideology.
And I affirm the liberty of those of other philosophies and religious to debate, share and digress from me. While we dialogue and evangelize, let’s make our neighborhoods flourish and be friends even with our deep differences.
Breaking free of generational oppression (cultural, economic, racial, social, spiritual) is a work of divine power…most often expressed through healthy relationships. As people of faith, hope and love, we have huge social capital – and when we intentionally make friends, the world changes. Every transformational story includes at least once inspiring relationship. Perhaps we are that person for someone.
2 challenges for today:
Libertarians: will you consider the common good and advocate for ethics and unselfishness as part of true liberty? You cannot unite Ayn Rand and Judeo-Christian values.
Socialists: your compassion must be united with economic sense. Removal of incentives chases creativity and innovation away and a large government class is no substitute for entrepreneurship.
There are better paths than these extremes.
First thoughts on Kavanaugh:
He is neither Messiah nor Antichrist.
His majority and dissent rulings as a federal judge show perspicacity and restraint and respect for the separation of powers. His appointment is not racist, sexist or xenophobic. His involvement with Starr in the 90s and later his defense of presidential power (during a Democratic administration) are part of a career marked by little controversy and should be seen in context.
It is important to remember that NO prior successful nominee has had to answer hypotheticals (Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Sotomayor), so expect some deflection when Roe v. Wade comes up. Also, the whining about “settled law“ is historical nonsense. 19th C. Courts gave us Dred Scott and “separate but equal” and fortunately these were later overturned. Our real crisis is a Congress (both parties) failing to do their job well, finding principled compromises for contentious issues.
He seems a decent, imperfect and kind person with basic integrity and a first-class mind. If religion is made a litmus test, we are violating a fundamental assertion of our Constitution. Feinstein’s horrendous, “Your dogma is strong…” is the last gasp of folks that think devout women and men cannot exercise sound judgment. What if Keith Ellison came up for nomination Progressives would decry conservative critique of his long involvement with the Nation of Islam as, “Islamophobic.” Why is Catholic-phobia tolerated?
I will share more during the formal hearings.