THE SERVANT GENERAL
SPEAKING THE TRUTH
April 5, 2015
There is so much accommodation in the Church today with regard
to sexual sins. Such posture over the last few decades has
devastated the faith and weakened our Church. Now, at the
highest levels of the hierarchy, there are moves to do further
accommodation, in the areas of cohabitation, divorce and remarriage,
and same-sex unions.
Rather than speak about sin, there is just seeming acceptance.
Worse, the very Christian virtues of mercy and compassion
are invoked to gain such acceptance.
We must speak the truth. We must confront sin. We must stand
fast on Christian morality. At the same time, we can and we
should exercise mercy and compassion. But true mercy looks
to the sinner’s repentance and full restoration to God,
rather than remaining in sin and endangering one’s soul.
Can Christianity survive the Sexual Revolution?
April 2, 2015 (CrisisMagazine.com) -- When
was the last time anyone heard a sermon that condemned the
evils of fornication, or adultery, or cohabitation, or divorce,
or bearing children outside wedlock (let alone homosexuality)?
Controlling these sins is a core Christian value. At one time
a preacher could be expected to devote extended attention
to these sins. And he could be expected to condemn them unequivocally.
Yet today, even as the social
and economic fallout from precisely these practices becomes
ever more glaring and serious, pastors and priests seem ever
more determined to avoid discussing them.
Of course, the dowdy old parson long ago became the stuff
of caricature, ranting on about unspecified “wickedness.”
And since no pastor wants to be seen as old-fashioned, and
most want to be modern and appeal to the ubiquitous cult of
youth, one never hears much
today about the sins of illicit sex. Indeed,
churches that consider themselves highly orthodox or biblical
or traditional or conservative or evangelicalthose described
by themselves and others as “fundamentalist”even
these churches avoid the problem of runaway sexual freedom.
Most Christian magazines and newspapers do not publish articles
about it and gatherings of clergy do not discuss how to control
it. No church today would dream
of admonishing or reproving, let alone excommunicating a member
because of sexual misconduct.
Yet ever more conspicuously, it is precisely these sins that
are wreaking havoc throughout our society.
All around us we can seeif we are willing to open our
eyesthe social consequences of uncontrolled sex. The
sexual decadence of popular culturein
music, television, and videosis only the most obvious
manifestation, providing material for endless and often pointless
But beyond the lamenting and bemoaning are consequences that
are concrete and serious. The vast proliferation of single-parent
homes is having devastating consequences on our society, economy,
and politics. The epidemics of cohabitation and runaway divorce
have left millions of fatherless children on the exploding
welfare and foster care rolls and spread crime and substance
abuse and truancy throughout our communities. These problems
are now bankrupting taxpayers and future generations with
a “financial crisis” that is attributable almost
in its entirety to welfare spending and its multiplier effects
in crime and social anomie, while driving governments to ever
more authoritarian measures to slake their insatiable thirst
Our universities and schools
have become little more than orgies, with a “hook-up”
culture that dominates campus life almost to the exclusion
of learning. Indeed, it now dominates the
learning too, with indoctrination in not only sex education
but sexual political ideology
through faux-disciplines like “women’s studies,”
and “queer studies,” that recast all knowledge
as sexual-political grievances.
The tyrannical side of this orgiastic culture is now becoming
too glaring to ignore, despite years of denial. For the
inevitable corollary to licentious indulgence is authoritarianism.
This is now plainly manifested in a political agenda pushed
by the same sexual radicals who promote the hook-up culture:
Young men are now routinely railroaded before campus kangaroo
courts on obviously fabricated accusations of “rape,”
“sexual assault,” “sexual harassment,”
“sexual misconduct” (no clear distinctions separate
these vague terms), sexual this and sexual that. In the regular
courts, men are imprisoned for decades on rape accusations
that are known to be false. Parents regularly lose their children
through spurious accusations of “child abuse”
that are never proven in any court. Fathers are incarcerated
without trial by divorce courts for patently trumped-up accusations
of “domestic violence,” or for simply trying to
see their own children, or for criticizing judges.
The response of the churches
to all this has been silence. Christians,
by and large, do not know what to make of this authoritarianism.
They are afraid to question accusations of sex crimes, but
they also know that this agenda is not theirs. Terrified of
being seen to defend “rapists,” “child abusers,”
“wife beaters,” and “deadbeat dads,”
the church sits mute in the face of what is claimed to be
a vast epidemic of sex crimes. Tempted to play it safe by
perfunctorily endorsing the purveyors of the new indulgence,
the church sides with falsehood against truth.
Now in turn, Christians find themselves being accused of “hatred”
and “bigotry” and threatened with punishment for
criticizing the homosexual agenda by the same lobby of radicals.
As Martin Niemoeller warned of a similar ideology, no one
speaks out for us because we did not speak out for others.
Truly diabolical is how this neglect turns back on us and
corrupts us too. Because we fail to control the sin, the sin
controls us. By refusing to confront the sin on God’s
terms, and instead relabeling it with terms we find easier
and safer to confront, we allow the sin to enlist us as its
agents. This takes the form of cheap moralizing and self-righteous
posturing: refusing to confront the guilty, we join witch
hunts against the innocent.
For what the radicals have done
is to redefine sin. Rather than the biblical definition set
forth in clear biblical language, we now have ideologically
redefined, government-approved definitions formulated in politicized
jargon. Sexual indulgence is no longer a sin against God;
it is now a crime against the leviathan state.
Pastors nowadays are much more likely to couch sexual sins
in the form that has been redefined and politicized by radical
secular ideology. To disguise their own irrelevance, they
join the mob to register their politically correct outrage
at “sexual harassment” and “domestic violence.”
(I have never heard a pastor preach at any length against
the “hook-up” culture, but they will endorse the
fabricated and discredited feminist claims of a “rape
culture,” only to leave themselves looking foolish when
the charges invariably prove false.)
Pastors who parrot this jargon cannot possibly know what these
terms mean, because no one knows what they mean. I have been
studying them for two decades and published articles on these
topics in refereed academic journals, and I do not know what
they mean, because it is precisely the purpose of these terms
to be so vague as to mean anything. They are devised intentionally
to circumvent the clear language that the law uses to define
criminal assault and safeguard the innocent with vagaries
whose only possible purpose is to criminalize heterosexual
men and Christians with flexible accusations that no one really
understands but everyone is terrified to question.
By contrast, pastors should know precisely what constitutes
fornication and adultery, because the Bible tells them. But
it is safer to preach about “sexual harassment”
than about fornication, because clergy
are often more frightened of feminists and functionaries than
they are of God.
Thus Christian faith itself
is gradually transformed from theology and morality into political
ideology. “Fornication” and “adultery”
were biblically defined sins committed by two people and punished
by God and the moral sanctions of the community. “Sexual
harassment” and “sexual abuse” are quasi-crimes
committed only by the man and punished by the state gendarmerie.
The preachers know whom it is safe to criticize.
The effect is to transform them from preachers of God’s
Word into adjunct political prosecutors.
Christian scholars churn out pointless tracts on ever more
esoteric points of theology and philosophy. But the
church’s crisis today is not imprecise or unsound doctrine.
The church’s failing now is lacking the courage to apply
its doctrine in the face of a defiant and politicized sexual
Why do pastors now evade the basic sins that plague every
congregation and the most critical sins that threaten to overwhelm
our society? Why do they stand mute at the very suggestion
that they should do so or mumble unconvincing excuses and
evasive weasel words, before nervously changing the subject
or walking away? (Try it.)
The answer is that they are frightened. No
pastor or priest wants to touch the subject of sexual sin,
because it will anger the liberal women who control most congregations.
This is not meant as condemnation; simply a recognition of
reality. The same dynamic produces similar silence from our
other watchdogs and gadflies: journalists and university faculty
Sexual freedom is the inevitable corollary to the feminization
of the church because radicals understand that sexual freedom
transfers power to those who can use a sexual identity as
leverage: politicized women and homosexuals. “My generation
let all of this nonsense of sexual confusion, radical feminism,
and the breakdown of the family go on, not realizing that
we … have gravely wounded the current generations,”
says Cardinal Leo Burke. “The Church has not effectively
reacted to these destructive cultural forces” and has
instead “become too influenced by radical feminism.”
And the first casualty of feminization is courage, the courage
that is demanded foremost of men, including clergy. This is
why Christian faith and radical sexual ideology are today
on a direct collision course, and why the radicals believe
Christian faith must lose.
In The American Conservative, Rod Dreher openly questions
whether Western Christianity itself can survive the revolution
in sexuality, as does the former Archbishop of Canterbury
in the Daily Telegraph. The question demands an answer one
way or the other.
We need to ask what remains that is still Christian not only
about Western institutionsthat seems clearbut about
the rest of us.
If we have lost our will to
enforce sexual morality in our congregations, if pastors will
not defend the very marriages that they themselves have consecratedand
the rest of us the marriages we ourselves have witnessedagainst
involuntary divorce or enforce the discipline on cohabiting
couples, then in what sense does Christian faith still have
any practical meaning in our common lives?
We complain that Christianity is being “banished from
the public square,” but we can hardly be surprised when
we ourselves have lost the stomach to defend our own parishioners,
congregations, and communities against violations of God’s
law, whether emanating from our ecclesiastical or secular
For the rest of us are no more courageous than the clergy.
Few of us will express moral disapproval when we find friends
cohabiting or committing adultery or inflicting unilateral,
involuntary divorce on their spouses and children. And therefore
few of us speak out when the state gendarmerie, filling the
vacuum that we have left, imposes the order that we refuse
to enforce in its own way, by taking away our brothers and
sisters in handcuffs.
“Religion is central to sexual regulation in almost
all societies,” writes homosexualist scholar Dennis
Altman. “Indeed, it may well be that the primary social
function of religion is to control sexuality.” Abdicating
this responsibility to regulate it in the name of God leaves
us vulnerable not only to social anomie, but also to those
who will step in and regulate it for their own purposes, imposing
criminal penalties and rationalizing their measures by invoking
various alternative, usually politicized theologies. “Ironically,
those countries which rejected religion in the name of Communism
tended to adopt their own version of sexual puritanism, which
often matched those of the religions they assailed.”
Today’s sexual revolutionaries are simply refining the
Perhaps it is time that we have the courage to admit that
the dowdy old parson who preached against illicit sex was
a wise and sensible man all along and a more faithful Christian
than those of us who made endless fun of him. Perhaps we should
start encouraging the self-control that he demanded and the
courage he displayed. Perhaps it is also time to regain some
respect for the wisdom of elders and forsake the Pinocchio
world where youth (along with its urges) is worshipped as
an achievement in itself, while elders, whom the Bible sets
as authority figures, are expected to hold their tongues.
Perhaps it is also time to discard the politically obligatory
weasel words (“No one wants to return to the bad old
days when…”) and accept that open-ended
sexual freedom puts us on a trajectory that will only spread
chaos, ruin more lives, destroy our freedom, and weaken our
civilization, until we summon the courage to speak the truth.
In short, perhaps it is time to accept that, here too, the
church does not have to change with the times and that it
needs to be the “rock” that Christ mandated it
Reprinted with permission from Crisis Magazine.