Friday roundup

Excellent piece by Rev. Dr. Carolyn Moore at the Wesleyan Covenant Association's website on why she responds to the looming UMC split with relief, even as she's dismayed at the death of courage that brought the denomination to this juncture:

Without context, the headlines in the national media might seem harsh and this plan to separate may come as a surprise. But for many who have been on this journey for years, this represents a significant and hopeful step forward. Most headlines last week led with the idea that the crux of the crisis is a disagreement over our sexual ethics, teachings on marriage, and the ordination of LBTQ+ clergy. I want to emphasize that the crisis in the UM Church does not rest on just these issues. Others agree. In a recent essay accurately entitled, “The Sad, Necessary Division of the United Methodist Church” David French writes:

“The secular media will cast the divide primarily in the terms it understands—as focused on “LGBT issues” – but that’s incomplete. The true fracturing point between Mainline and Evangelical churches is over the authority and interpretation of scripture. The debate over LGBT issues is a consequence of the underlying dispute, not its primary cause… there is a strain of Protestant Christianity that views the Bible as valuable but not infallible or inerrant. Evangelical Christians, by contrast, strongly dissent from that view.”

That seems an accurate statement to me. Our divide has been forming for years over multiple issues that are very real and very deep. They strike at the fundamentals of historical Christian orthodoxy. How we interpret scripture and relate to the person and work of Jesus Christ is at the headwaters of this crisis, but it is also important to note that our inability to hold one another accountable where we disagree only exacerbates the problem. When some of our leaders are unwilling to hold us accountable to the time-honored way we make decisions at our General Conferences, the result is a kind of disorder and dysfunction that is excruciating.

The hard reality we must admit today is that while we traditionalists have won votes at General Conference, we have not really held the line of orthodoxy within the UM Church. While we are thankful for the reaffirmation of our teachings, some of our American colleagues openly resist what we have reaffirmed. With no theological or ethical accountability and no will among many bishops to establish accountability, there is no line left to hold. Most of us – from across the theological divide – recognize we can no longer go on this way.

Some would implore us to stay in the current situation and keep voting for traditional values at General Conference, as if we might eventually wear down our progressive colleagues and compel them to leave. I have zero faith in that eventuality. A colleague in my conference who serves on the board of a progressive movement within the UM Church told me without blinking an eye, “We will never leave.” And I believe her. Why would she? With accountability on these matters gone – and it is – her approach is working to a degree; it is a functional response. So, we frustrate her sincerely held views on very important matters, and in return she and colleagues in her theological camp frustrate our sincerely held beliefs. This is not a healthy dynamic for a supposedly united church.

Friends, let’s support this protocol. Let’s get ourselves out of an Egypt filled with conflict and bitterness. The protocol might not be the promised land, but once we are out of the Egypt we are living in, we traditionalists can participate with the Holy Spirit in building a vital and fruitful movement that reflects our faith and the faith of our fathers. Our ground – the ground I want to be standing on – is on the other side of separation, where we can make choices from a place of strength, and without the anarchy we live in now.

It wasn't the first piece I'd ever encountered on the subject of guys who wear shorts in the dead of winter, but I was game when I saw this Atlantic article, hoping it would offer a fresh take, or a view of the matter that would take in all ages and demographics who so attire themselves.  Alas, I should have taken my cue from the title: "Why Some Kids Wear Shorts All Winter." Having thus limited the scope, we get a range of reasons that doesn't do much to shed real insight: attention-seeking, not wanting to appear wimpy, testing the limits of authority, and such. She even quotes a therapist who recommends that parents begin a conversation with shorts-clad boys thusly:

“Start with ‘I’m really curious,’ or ‘I’m wondering,’ or ‘I’ve noticed that you don’t like wearing [long pants] in the winter. Tell me more.’ What you might find is that it’s a sensory issue, that they say, ‘I don’t like the way the fabric feels against my skin,’” she said. “You might actually be able to work with that. You could be able to find something that would keep them warm but work for them a little bit better.”

Niskanen Center president Jerry Taylor posits that all this misses the obvious, something that might have surfaced if the Atlantic piece had included adult participation in the phenomenon:

Jerry Taylor

@jerry_jtaylor

Not just boys. Also men in DC. None of these explanations resonate. Per 

@RadioFreeTom

, we've simply raised people who want to be in pajamas all day and have zero sense of social decorum. Its like we have an entire adult world in day care.  

Conversation

See new Tweets

From the Trump-occasionally-gets-one-right file: Today he announced that the National Environmental Policy Act will be getting modernized:

The proposed rule to bring NEPA into the 21st century would modernize environmental regulations without burdening “American workers, farmers, and families” by bringing new infrastructure projects to communities nationwide in an expedited fashion.

Per the White House, the proposed rule will:

• Establish time limits of 2 years for completion of environmental impact statements and 1 year for completion of environmental assessments.
• Specify page limits, promotes information sharing through modern technology, and better defines environmental effects and other key terms.
• Reduce unnecessary burdens and delays for environmental reviews.
  Agencies would be allowed to establish procedures for adopting another agency’s determinations to increase efficiency.
• Improve collaboration with state, local, and tribal governments.

 Better savor that. Those don't come along too often.

Now, how's this for an inflated sense of his own powers?

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

U.S. Cancer Death Rate Lowest In Recorded History! A lot of good news coming out of this Administration.

10:00 AM · Jan 9, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

But why wouldn't he say this kind of stuff, given the way his sycophants drool over him?

Andrew Lawrence

@ndrew_lawrence

Lou Dobbs attacks America for not understanding we have an obligation to serve Donald Trump "It is a shame that this country which is benefitting so much from this president's leadership does not understand their obligations to this leader who is making it possible"

Mayor Pete didn't do his supposed moderate-Dem image any good by describing the shooting down (by an Iranian missile) of the Ukrainian airliner as "innocent civilians . . . caught in the middle of an unwanted and unnecessary tit for tat."


At The Imaginative Conservative, Hillsdale history professor Bradley Birzer reflects on the ancient uses of the term "The Word," or logos,  that may have informed the way St. John employs it at the beginning of his Gospel.