Commentary: Dovetailing agendas – reflections on sexuality, immigration, families, and economics

The recent massacre, by a (perhaps repressed-homosexual) Islamic terrorist of 49 people in an Orlando nightclub catering to the LGBT population of the area has served as, in the words of one commentator, a “Rorschach test” for some of the issues dividing Americans today, including homosexuality, immigration (although American-born, he was the son of Afghan immigrants), and Jihadism (Islamic extremism, militant Islam, etc.).

As is always the case with tragic events, this has brought out some of the best, and some of the worst, in the people of this country. It has also sparked, or helped to coalesce, a number of thoughts for me, personally.

Let me start by saying that I have quite a number of LGBT friends, many of whom I love dearly, regardless of what they might do in the bedroom. And furthermore, as Christians, we are called a) to remember that we all are sinners, and b) to love one another as we love ourselves, and as Christ loved us. So I have zero tolerance when it comes to bashing people, verbally or (especially) otherwise, for their sexual proclivities.

That said, from a political perspective, it occurs to me that supporting and promoting homosexuality is useful to those who want to “transform society”: not only for its own sake, by making what used to be seen as deviant behavior appear normal, but also because it serves as a form of social birth control, helping to bring down the population, and providing still more openings for the importation of third-world “migrants” to achieve the liberal ideal of a fully “blended” society. (We have also been taught for years that reducing population is an ecological necessity, but that’s a subject for another post.) In fact, the non-procreative nature of homosexual behavior is probably one of the reasons why it has been frowned upon by most societies throughout the world, and throughout history.

And of course the “sexual revolution” as a whole — which decoupled (no pun intended) sex from procreation, and turned it into a solely elective, recreational activity — had, and continues to to have, the same effect. A sentiment I hear expressed time and again on the net, and sometimes in person, is that “sex is just sex”: something to do with your spare time, a recreational activity, not a sacred duty and trust, intended for the strengthening of the bond between two intimate partners – namely, the husband and wife in a marriage relationship – and the procreation of children within that marriage.

While it’s not generally thought of as a “liberal” contribution, the loss of a living wage has also had a deleterious effect on families and child-bearing. It used to be that a single wage-earner could reasonably be expected to support his (usually) or her family, but that is no longer the case. With both parents working, there is less incentive to have children, and less opportunity for any children one does have to be formed in and by traditional family and societal values. As I say, this isn’t a strictly “liberal” policy, but it’s surely an effect of “neoliberal” economics!

Meanwhile, the “ideal” of the “career woman” has been praised to the heavens, while “stay at home moms” get sneered at. To cap that, we are informed that “well-behaved women rarely make history.” Well, that may (or may not) be true, but they certainly do make for stable, loving, and committed relationships, families, and homes, which in turn are the foundation of a stable society — and that is perhaps rather more important, in the overall scheme of things!

Anybody besides me starting to see a pattern, here…?

And of course, on a different but still related subject, the fewer guns that are in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens who still believe in the Constitution and American values, customs, and traditions, the less meaningful will be any resistance to these policies. If governmental and non-governmental forces seem aggressive in their social-transformation policies now, imagine what they would be like if they were not at least somewhat restrained by the knowledge that there are up to 77 million armed American citizens!

I am becoming increasingly aware of, and appalled by, the way so many of these allegedly “liberal” ideas and policies dovetail together. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for what to do about it. But I will say that recognizing and facing up to the problem is an important first step!

British Monarchist League – Ella, an adorable little Royalist!

Sam and Hayley’s daughter Ella has been fascinated by the Queen and the trooping the colour ceremony since 2014 when she watched it for the first time. Sam and Hayley, in Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, bought her the outfit for Christmas and have taken her to watch the changing of the guards on several occasions. BBC©

Official, but informal, Royal portrait

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, on the occasion of their birthdays: her 90th, his 95th.

Royal Couple

“He has, quite simply, been my strength & stay all these years.”

A new photo to mark The Queen’s official 90th birthday celebrations and The Duke of Edinburgh’s 95th birthday today.

This is the final portrait in the series of official photographs taken by Annie Leibovitz to mark The Queen’s 90th Birthday.

Source: The Royal Family on Facebook

(Roman Catholic) Bishop Schneider’s 12 steps to surviving as a Catholic family in a “heretical wasteland”

“Looking for a survival plan for your Catholic family? This is a ‘must read.'”

Source: WATCH: Bishop Schneider’s 12 steps to surviving as a Catholic family in a heretical wasteland | News | LifeSite

With some “tweaking” of specifics, such as replacing the Catechism and Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church with the classical Book of Common Prayer (1549-1662 in the U.K., 1789-1928 in the U.S., and particularly the 1928 BCP), including its own Catechism and Offices of Instruction, and the teachings of the fathers and doctors of the ancient and undivided Church of the first millennium — especially, as the great 17th century Anglican divine Lancelot Andrewes phrased it,

“One Canon [of Scripture] reduced to writing by God himself,  two  Testaments, three Creeds (*), four General Councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after – determine the boundary of our faith”

— this could apply equally to Anglicans who wish to exercise what some are now calling “the Benedict Option” on a family level.

* includes the Athanasian Creed, a more detailed explication of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines of the Christian faith.

Russia’s last Empress on Marriage and Family Life – Juicy Ecumenism

Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna offers profound words of wisdom on the twin subjects of Christian marriage and family life. Her reflections and counsel are all the more necessary in these times, for they call all Christian husbands and wives, mothers and fathers to embrace the true vocations of matrimony, marked by a shared life of selflessness and loving sacrifice.


Source: Russia’s last Empress on Marriage and Family Life – Juicy Ecumenism

True enough, this is Russian and Orthodox in focus, not British or Anglican! But that does not mean the wisdom and guidance provided by the last Tsarina is not just as worth heeding by good Christian folk of other churches, communions, and jurisdictions. Besides, Anglicans have traditionally had very good relations with Orthodox Christians, since both look to the Fathers and Doctors of the ancient and undivided Church of the first millennium.

And Christian marriage is under threat from many directions, in today’s highly secular culture: it does not hurt us at all to recall — and hopefully, model our own relationships after — the traditional, ideal form of holy matrimony, expressed so clearly and beautifully by Empress Alexandra, and described by my friend Ryan Hunter.

Washington Post: “Why the Church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage”

“The church will need in the years ahead to articulate what we believe about marriage; we cannot assume that people agree with us, or even understand us. Let’s not simply talk about marriage in terms of values or culture or human flourishing. Let’s talk about marriage the way Jesus and the apostles taught us to — as bound up with the gospel itself, a picture of the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:32).

As we do so, we must not just articulate our views of marriage, we must embody a gospel marriage culture. We have done a poor job of that in the past. Too many of our marriages have been ravaged by divorce. Too often we’ve neglected church discipline in the cases of those who have unrepentantly destroyed their marriages. We must repent of our failings and picture to the world what marriage is meant to be, and keep the light lit to the old paths…

Permanent, stable marriages with families with both a mother and a father may well make us seem freakish in 21st-century culture.

We should not fear that.”