Variability within the Christian Faith Community

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

One of the differences (variation) between the Catholics and Protestants is Sola Scriptura.

  • Sola Scriptura is a Latin term meaning “Scripture alone,” which asserts that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice. This doctrine was a key principle of the Protestant Reformation, emphasizing that all necessary truth for salvation is found in Scripture. Wikipedia

Catholic Evangelization

GEMINI: What is “Apostolicam Actuositatem”?

Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) is a significant document from the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965.

It serves as the definitive guide on the role of laypeople (non-clergy) within the Catholic Church’s mission. While earlier church focus was often centered on the hierarchy, this decree emphasizes that the laity have a direct and necessary role in the “apostolate”—the work of spreading the Gospel and sanctifying the world.

Key Themes and Principles

  • The Lay Vocation: It teaches that the call to be an apostle does not come from a special appointment by a bishop, but from Baptism itself. Every Catholic is called to participate in the Church’s mission.

  • Sanctifying the Secular World: A unique aspect of the lay apostolate is its focus on the “temporal order.” This means laypeople are specifically called to bring Christian values into politics, family life, professional work, and social structures.

  • The Role of the Family: The document highlights the family as the “domestic church” and the primary place where the faith is lived and transmitted.

  • Collaboration: While asserting the independence of lay initiatives, it also stresses the importance of working in communion with the Church’s hierarchy.

Why It Matters Today

As seen on the Epistles about page, the document continues to inspire personal apostolates and digital ministries. It provides the theological foundation for “lay movements” and encourages individuals to take personal responsibility for the moral and spiritual health of their communities, rather than viewing the clergy as the sole actors in the Church.

Why It Was Revolutionary

Before Vatican II, the Church was often viewed through a “top-down” lens where the clergy were the primary actors. Apostolicam Actuositatem shifted this perspective, describing the Church as the whole People of God. It empowered laypeople to take personal responsibility for the moral and spiritual health of their communities rather than being passive recipients of the faith.

To understand how Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA) changed the landscape for laypeople, it is helpful to compare it to the “Pre-Vatican II” model of the Church. For centuries, the Church was often viewed through a strictly hierarchical lens—sometimes jokingly referred to as the “pray, pay, and obey” era for the laity.

Here is a breakdown of the fundamental shifts introduced by the decree:

1. From “Assistants” to “Apostles”

  • Before: The laity were often seen as “helpers” to the clergy. Their role was to assist the priest in his mission if he asked for it (a concept known as “Catholic Action”).

  • After (AA): The decree clarifies that the lay apostolate is a right and duty that comes from Baptism, not from a mandate by a bishop. Laypeople don’t just “help” the Church; they are the Church in the world.

2. The “Secular” as a Sacred Space

  • Before: Holiness was often associated with retreating from the world (monasticism or priesthood). The secular world (politics, business, labor) was seen as a distraction or a “lesser” sphere of spiritual importance.

  • After (AA): The decree argues that the “temporal order”—the everyday world of family and work—is the specific domain of the laity. It is their job to “infuse the Christian spirit” into these areas. A politician or a parent isn’t just living a secular life; they are performing a religious mission by seeking justice and love in those roles.

3. The Source of Authority

  • Before: Authority and mission flowed strictly from the top down. The Pope told the Bishops, who told the Priests, who told the Laity what to do.

  • After (AA): While maintaining respect for the hierarchy, AA emphasizes the “Charisms” (spiritual gifts) given to individuals by the Holy Spirit. It encourages laypeople to take the initiative and act on their own “right and duty” to spread the Gospel, rather than waiting for a specific command for every action.

4. The Church as “People of God”

  • Before: The Church was often defined by its structure—the institution and its laws.

  • After (AA): The document views the Church as a communion or the “People of God.” This shift in language suggests that every member, regardless of their rank, shares in the three-fold mission of Christ: as priest, prophet, and king.

Comparison Summary

Feature Pre-Vatican II View Apostolicam Actuositatem View
Primary Role To receive the sacraments and obey. To act as a primary witness to Christ.
Mission Field Supporting the local parish. Transforming the world (politics, work, etc.).
Identity “Non-clergy” (defined by what they are not). “Apostles” (defined by their Baptismal call).
Involvement Passive/Reactive. Active/Initiative-taking.

A breakdown of how this decree differs from the Church’s earlier views on the laity.

Justice Thomas: America’s Founding Ideals

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Justice Clarence Thomas urges a return to founding ideals in speech marking America’s 250th anniversary  Justice Clarence Thomas described progressivism as a threat to the nation’s founding principles during a speech at UT Austin, and urged younger generations to stand up for their principles. (Credit: C-SPAN)

Gemini: What has Justice Thomas identified as America’s ideals?

In a special lecture at the University of Texas at Austin marking America’s 250th anniversary, Justice Clarence Thomas identified several core ideals rooted in the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of the American experiment.

He emphasized that these principles are not merely “academic playthings” or “esoteric philosophy,” but are intended to be a practical way of life for all citizens.

Core Founding Ideals

Justice Thomas highlighted three primary principles from the Declaration that he considers the “North Star” of the republic:

  • Universal Equality: The belief that all people are created equal in the image and likeness of God 15:03Opens in a new window. He noted that this equality is inherent and cannot be diminished or granted by any human government 15:13Opens in a new window.
  • Unalienable Rights: Natural rights—specifically life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that precede and transcend governmental authority 16:45Opens in a new window.
  • Government by Consent: The principle that government derives its legitimate power solely from the consent of the governed, with the primary purpose of securing these pre-existing rights 22:37Opens in a new window.

The “Indispensable” Final Sentence

Justice Thomas argued that the most critical part of the Declaration is often the most overlooked: the final sentence where the signers “mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” 23:51Opens in a new window.

  • Courage as an Ideal: He defined courage not as the absence of fear, but as the assessment that these principles are more important than fear 24:34Opens in a new window.
  • Devotion: He stated that without the “last full measure of devotion”—a willingness to sacrifice personal comfort, popularity, and security—the Declaration is just “mere words on parchment paper” 25:07Opens in a new window.

 Challenges to These Ideals

Thomas issued a warning against Progressivism, which he identified as a “retrogressive” movement that opposes the founding ideals 51:06Opens in a new window. He argued that Progressivism:

Justice Thomas concluded by urging citizens to “take ownership” of their country and to defend these ideals daily—whether by speaking up in a classroom or running for a local school board—rather than sitting on the sidelines 01:31:20Opens in a new window.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Delivers Special Lecture at UT Austin

The University of Texas at Austin · 11K views

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Delivers Special Lecture at UT Austin. To commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence …Opens in a new window

 

Book: Electoral Instability

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Unstable Majorities Continue: The Trump Era

By: Morris P. Fiorina

The United States is experiencing a period of electoral instability unprecedented in our history. Neither of the two major political parties reflects the political will of the majority of Americans, who must choose between candidates holding positions more extreme than those of the typical voter. With no true centrist party, Republicans and Democrats take turns as the party in charge.

Unstable Majorities Continue: The Trump Era examines the current pattern of volatile party control that, from a historical perspective, is very unusual. It follows the author’s 2017 book Unstable Majorities, which identified this trend in analyzing the 2016 election.

In contrast to the relatively stable party majorities that characterized preceding eras, since 1992 the country has experienced a period of unstable institutional majorities, where presidential candidates have earned relatively narrow margins of victory and control of the House and Senate has fluctuated. For several decades now, the verdict from the voting electorate has often been one of no confidence in whatever institutional pattern of control prevails.

Why have American politics changed so dramatically? Fiorina states that the current nature of the country’s political conflicts is misunderstood. After reforms, societal changes, and political coalition-building, the Republican and Democratic parties of today are much different organizations from those that operated in the past, becoming more homogeneous internally and more distant from each other—and from the public—in policy and ideology. The parties have polarized; the electorate has not.

There are no indications that the 2024 elections have ended the era of unstable majorities. While the rise of populism contributes to present conflicts, it is a consequence more than a cause, with economic conditions ranking near the top of factors affecting party fortunes.

By examining data and voting behavior on abortion, gun control, environmental regulation, and other issues, Fiorina argues that voter positions have largely stayed moderate over time. He dispels the commonly held belief that American voters have become politically polarized, creating a “Divided States of America.”

About the Author

Morris P. Fiorina is the Wendt Family Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution. His research focuses on public opinion and elections and how they relate to democratic representation.

Conscience and Truth: The Reality of Goodness

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Conscience is a Window to Truth, More on Pope Benedict’s work and its reception by Gen Z by D. W. Pasulka

  • My Non-Denominational Christian, Catholic Experience.  Is Christian Life Based on Belief in Things Unseen and only Hoped For? Actually, No. by D. W. Pasulka
    • “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 NRSV
    • Spe Salvi (In Hope We are Saved), BENEDICT XVI
      • “Benedict says that faith is not merely subjective conviction, but the real presence of what is hoped for. And not just that, but more precisely, through faith, what is hoped for is already present “in embryo”… as substance within us. “
      • He reveals how Martin Luther’s translation shifted the meaning in a way that was not authentic to the early Church. Benedict’s translation is from the original Greek: “Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.

Excerpts

Ratzinger describes conscience as a window, an opening through which the human person encounters a truth that is not self-generated. Conscience is a “window through which one can see outward to that common truth which founds and sustains us all, and so makes possible through the common recognition of truth, the community of needs and responsibilities.” It thus establishes one’s obligations and duties.

Ratzinger taps into the tradition that holds that conscience is not something we invent; it is something we discover. He retrieves Socratic anamnesis—that there is in the human being a memory of the good and an orientation toward truth that precedes conscious reasoning. We recognize truth, he suggests, not because we create it, but because something in us resonates with it. This is why conscience can accuse us, disturb us, even wound us. Ratzinger says that the feeling of guilt is not a defect but a sign of health—the signal that we are still in contact with reality. When that signal disappears, when a person no longer feels guilt, this is not moral maturity but a kind of spiritual deadness.

This portion of Ratzinger’s essay reminds me of the work of philosopher Hannah Arendt, especially her book The Life of the Mind. Arendt was Jewish and had escaped Nazi occupied France in 1940 and eventually became a professor of philosophy in the United States. In The Life of the Mind, published posthumously (she was working on it when she died), her central question is: why do some people choose to do evil? One of the answers (there are a few) she arrives at is based on her observation that good people have regrets. Evil people do not. “The most dangerous people are not those who choose evil with anguish, but those who do not think, and therefore are not disturbed by what they do.” Evil people sleep well at night, she writes, and they do not have what good people have, which is an inner conversation about their actions in the world.

Guilt, or, having a guilty conscience, is a step toward the recognition of, and what Ratzinger calls us to see—the reality of goodness. Goodness calls us to align ourselves with it.

Love, Chapter 13, I Corinthians

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Teachings Of The Monk Of Skye. And: America Learns Its War Lesson, Again; Thank God For White Liberals  by Rod Dreher

Excerpts

This, I think, is what St. Paul meant in the famous chapter 13 from I Corinthians. You probably know this chapter, but to read it after reading McGilchrist opens it up in new ways:

If I speak in the tonguesof men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

In the interview, Iain discusses how the most profound things cannot be known directly, but indirectly. This is why poetry matters more than prose. He speaks of how “extraordinarily important” the liturgy is, and why it’s a very big mistake to muck about with changing the liturgy.

Moralistic therapeutic deism (MTD)

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

The ‘Me Generation’, Fifty Years On, And: Dreading Sundown; Trump & Civil War; UK Submission; Clergy Family, Rod Dreher, Mar 23, 2026

We now know that religious belief and practice peaked in America in 1991, and has been declining ever since. In 2004, sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton published their findings about the de facto religious and spiritual beliefs of the first generation raised after the Third Great Awakening had become cultural orthodoxy. They found that Christianity had been replaced by what they called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a badly watered down form of Christianity perfectly suited for the Me Generation and its progeny. In 2011, after further studies, Smith glumly concluded that for the Millennials, “all that society is, apparently, is a collection of autonomous individuals out to enjoy life.”

Wikipedia

Moralistic therapeutic deism (MTD) is a term that was first introduced in the 2005 book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers by the sociologist Christian Smith[1] with Melinda Lundquist Denton.[2] The term is used to describe the generalized monotheistic beliefs they consider to be common among young people in the United States.[3][4][5] The book is the result of the research project the National Study of Youth and Religion.[6]

Definition

The authors’ study found that many young people believe in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is not a new religion or theology as such, but identified as a set of commonly held spiritual beliefs. It is this combination of beliefs that they label moralistic therapeutic deism:

  1. A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
  2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
  3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die.[7]

These points of belief were compiled from interviews with approximately 3,000 teenagers.[8]

Indiana Governor Braun order establishes Indiana faith-based institutions initiative, spearheaded by Beckwith’s office

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Feb 26, 2026. INDIANAPOLIS — A new executive order from Indiana Gov. Mike Braun established the Indiana Faith-Based Institutions Initiative, a program that Braun stated in the order will be run by the office of Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith.

The initiative aims at encouraging and fostering faith-based institutions to better serve individual Hoosiers, families and communities, according to Executive Order 26-06.

Through this initiative, Beckwith and the lieutenant governor’s office will be able to consult with experts and leaders of faith-based institutions that operate programs in specific areas to help identify areas to “reduce barriers to effective participation of faith-based institutions in addressing societal ills.”

The specific areas outlined in the order include:

  • Increasing civic engagement
  • Promoting recovery from substance use disorder
  • Facilitating prisoner reentry into society
  • Cultivating resilience through work and self-sufficiency
  • Strengthening the family unit
  • Mentoring the next generation
  • Promoting principled morals and character
  • Supporting foster parenting and adoption

The order stands that Braun’s administration believes that the state of Indiana’s “diverse and welcoming faith community” can help bring “unique skills, services and resources to assist with the struggles” that Hoosiers face.

Officials said they believe that these institutions have the capacity to serve in ways different from what government can provide, as well as with effectiveness that “often exceeds that of government.”

In a post on social media from Beckwith, he thanked Braun for moving forward with this program, stating that he is “humbled by his confidence” for his office to spearhead the initiative. Beckwith said he believes that Hoosiers will “benefit from this effort for years to come.”

“By promoting collaboration between state government and faith-based partners, the initiative aims to expand the reach of programs that help Hoosiers overcome addiction, reenter society after incarceration, strengthen their families, develop resilience through work and build meaningful lives rooted in purpose and service,” Beckwith said in the post. “These community-rooted institutions frequently provide forms of support that government alone cannot, and ensuring they are able to participate fully and freely is vital to the well-being of our state.

The order’s emphasis on safeguarding religious liberty and creating a fair, welcoming environment for all qualified service providers reaffirms Indiana’s long-standing commitment to both constitutional principles and community partnership,” Beckwith’s post continued. “Empowering organizations that uplift Hoosiers in times of need strengthens families, enhances civic engagement and broadens pathways to opportunity across our state.”

Liberty Dies Quietly: Why Self-Government Is a Spiritual Issue

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

By David Joy, Chairman & CEO, This We Defend

Follow David on LinkedIn here

Liberty does not die in a dramatic explosion.  It dies in subtle erosion.

It dies when citizens become consumers.  It dies when comfort replaces conviction.  It dies when the Church confuses silence with wisdom.

America will not collapse because of one election cycle, one Supreme Court ruling, or one cultural trend. Nations rarely fall because of a single blow. They fall because the moral and intellectual infrastructure that sustains freedom decays from within.

And here is the uncomfortable truth: self-government is not first a political issue. It is a spiritual one.

Freedom Requires Formation

A free nation requires self-governing citizens.

Self-governing citizens require discipline.  Discipline requires truth.  Truth requires moral clarity.

Remove moral clarity and liberty cannot survive.

We speak often about “freedom” as though it is a default setting. It is not. Freedom is a disciplined state sustained by people capable of restraining themselves without external force. If citizens cannot govern their appetites, their impulses, their anger, and their greed, then government will step in to do it for them.

Scripture makes this plain: “Like a city whose walls are broken through is a person who lacks self-control.” — Proverbs 25:28

Ancient cities with broken walls were defenseless. They were not conquered because they were unlucky. They were conquered because they were exposed.

The same is true of nations.  The same is true of individuals.

Self-control is not merely a personal virtue. It is a national safeguard.

Indoctrination Is the Enemy of Liberty

Liberty depends on critical thinking. Critical thinking depends on the ability to examine ideas without fear of punishment.

When education shifts from inquiry to ideology, freedom weakens. When students are trained what to think rather than how to think, liberty decays.

This is not hyperbole. It is historical fact.

Totalitarian regimes do not begin with tanks. They begin with classrooms. They begin with the slow reshaping of language, the redefining of terms, the emotional conditioning of young minds to accept ideas without scrutiny.

The Apostle Paul warned about this long ago:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” — Colossians 2:8

Notice the word: captive.

Captivity is not always physical. It is often intellectual. A mind captured by hollow philosophy will defend its own chains.

When civil discourse is replaced with outrage, when disagreement is labeled hate, when dissent is silenced rather than debated, that is not progress. That is fragility masquerading as virtue.

A society that cannot tolerate open discourse cannot sustain liberty.

Dependency Weakens the Republic

A free people must be productive people.

Entrepreneurship, innovation, small business ownership: these are not merely economic activities. They are expressions of self-governance. They cultivate responsibility, risk tolerance, creativity, and accountability.

A dependency culture, by contrast, erodes initiative. It conditions citizens to look upward for provision rather than outward for opportunity.

Scripture affirms the dignity of work and responsibility:

“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

This is not cruelty. It is clarity.

Work forms character.  Responsibility strengthens resolve.  Ownership cultivates maturity.

When citizens lose these habits, they lose the muscles required to sustain freedom.

Moral Confusion Is National Suicide

No nation has ever sustained liberty without moral cohesion.

National strength is not first economic. It is not first military. It is not first technological.

It is moral.

When moral categories blur, when right and wrong become subjective, when truth becomes negotiable, when virtue becomes relative, the foundation fractures.

Isaiah warned of this inversion:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” — Isaiah 5:20

That is not poetic exaggeration. That is a civilizational warning.

A culture that loses moral clarity does not drift into neutrality. It drifts into chaos. And chaos invites control.

Liberty cannot survive where sin is celebrated and righteousness is mocked.

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” — Proverbs 14:34

This is not partisan rhetoric. It is biblical reality.

The Church Cannot Remain Passive

Here is where this becomes controversial.

The Church often retreats when conversations become political. But when the issue is liberty, self-governance, moral clarity, and truth, we are not talking about party platforms. We are talking about discipleship.

Self-government is fruit of the Spirit territory.

“For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline.” — 2 Timothy 1:7

Power.  Love.  Self-discipline.

These are the traits of a free people.

If the Church does not model courage, moral clarity, intellectual rigor, and disciplined living, then who will?

Silence is not neutrality. It is surrender.

This We Defend

This We Defend exists because liberty does not defend itself.

The core conviction is unapologetic:  If we do not intentionally form citizens capable of sustaining liberty, we will lose it, not to foreign invasion, but to apathy, indoctrination, and moral confusion.

Liberty is not preserved by nostalgia.  It is preserved by formation.

Formation of minds.  Formation of character.  Formation of communities grounded in truth.

A culture that cannot think clearly cannot remain free.  A people unwilling to defend truth will eventually serve lies.

And once liberty is redefined, it rarely returns in its original form.

The Final Question

The question is not whether liberty is under pressure. It is.

The question is whether we are willing to do the disciplined, often unpopular work required to sustain it.

Will we raise children who can think critically?  Will we build businesses that cultivate responsibility?  Will we defend moral truth when it is inconvenient?  Will we model self-government in our own lives?

Because if we cannot govern ourselves, we will be governed.

And history is clear: governments rarely shrink once citizens surrender their strength.

A Call to Action

If you believe liberty is worth defending…

If you understand that freedom requires formation…

If you recognize that self-government is a spiritual responsibility, not merely a political preference…

Stand with This We Defend.

Support the work.  Engage in the mission.  Help build citizens capable of sustaining real liberty.

Because liberty does not die in a day.

It dies in silence.

And silence is a luxury we can no longer afford.

You can reach David at David.Joy@thiswedefend.org.

For more bold and unapologetically Christ-centric content like this, please subscribe to the C-Suite for Christ YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@csuiteforchrist

Interested in joining the C-Suite for Christ movement?

Then, visit our website to learn how you can help us cover the world in Christ.

Please check us out at https://csuiteforchrist.com/

Special thanks to Custom Service Hardware – Home of Putnam Rolling Ladders for their support.

Custom Service Hardware has proudly served kitchen creators, woodworking professionals, and DIY enthusiasts for over 45 years.

Founded in 1977 in Wisconsin, they’re rooted in faith, craftsmanship, and quality.

From custom cabinetry to iconic Putnam Rolling Ladders, they provide custom-made products, specialty hardware, tools, and support to bring your vision to life.

To learn more, please visit: https://cshardware.com/

Progressive Christian Theology

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized , , , ,

Progressive Christian Theology by Tyson Zahner 

My last post about James Talarico’s progressive Christian theology generated hundreds of conversations. The most interesting ones were with progressive Christians themselves… sincere, thoughtful people who love Jesus and genuinely believe they’re following Him more faithfully than the traditional church has.
After engaging in several of these conversations, I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument… a shared worldview that produces them. And I think understanding that worldview is more important than debating any single issue, because until you see the operating system, you’ll keep getting lost in the apps.
So this isn’t an attack on progressive Christians. It’s an honest attempt to describe what I think their worldview gets wrong.
I’ll start with their core move…
Every conversation came back to some version of this: “Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings.”
But I see two problems here.
One is simply a breakdown in what we mean by “love”.
Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that’s not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to “will the good of the other” which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing.
For example, no one would look at an 80-pound anorexic girl who believes she’s overweight and say the loving thing is to affirm her. We all understand that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is refuse to affirm what someone genuinely believes about themselves because affirming it might destroy them.
Even Jesus in His most intimate, final moment demonstrated this while hanging next to two thieves in agony.
Jesus didn’t remove their suffering or tell them their choices didn’t matter. He offered truth. And one of the thieves accepted it, but only after saying, “we are receiving the due reward of our deeds” (Luke 23:41). Repentance came before redemption. That’s what love looked like from Jesus when it mattered most.
The other problem is that this worldview ignores where Jesus said all the Law and the Prophets “hang” on these two commandments (Matthew 22:40). That word “hang” matters.
The law hangs on love the way a picture hangs on a nail. The nail holds up the picture, but it doesn’t replace it. Remove the nail and the picture falls. But remove the picture and you just have a nail in the wall.
In other words, love and obedience aren’t in tension. They’re inseparable. Jesus Himself said: “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
And then there’s the question no one could answer…
Several people told me their faith is grounded in experiencing Jesus in their hearts… that a personal relationship with God supersedes strict adherence to a text.
I don’t dismiss that the Holy Spirit works in believers’ hearts.
But here’s the question I kept asking, and no one could answer: (well, they tried, but every answer relied on the same circular reasoning the question was designed to expose)
If what you feel in your heart can override what the text says, doesn’t that make Christianity infinitely malleable? In other words, how do you ever know when you’re wrong?
For example, slaveholders in the antebellum South believed God ordained their way of life. They felt it in their hearts. They were wrong even though they were sincere.
The text was the corrective that eventually dismantled their position. Abolitionists didn’t win by saying “I feel in my heart that slavery is wrong.” They won by showing, from Scripture, that the trajectory of the biblical narrative demanded liberation. They appealed to the text, not away from it.
If feelings had been the final authority, slavery might never have been abolished… because the slaveholders’ hearts told them they were right, too.
And here’s why it’s so hard to argue with progressive Christianity…
In my previous post I mentioned Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist who is not religious, not conservative, and has described his own political leanings as liberal).
Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind about why good people are divided by politics. His research isn’t about theology. But it explains why progressive Christianity is so effective and so persuasive to so many.
His core finding was this: conservatives draw from a broader moral palette including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Progressives weight care and fairness far above the others.
In chapter 12, Haidt himself wrote: “When I speak to liberal audiences about the three ‘binding’ foundations — Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity — I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.”
Progressive Christianity does the same thing theologically. It elevates the care and fairness dimensions of Jesus’s teaching above everything else… then treats anyone who draws from the other moral foundations as a Pharisee.
The result sounds like pure love. But it’s a narrowed moral vision that has quietly set aside half the palette and declared the remaining half to be the whole gospel.
In one of my conversations, a self-described progressive Christian told me plainly: “The vast majority of progressive Christians aren’t against border enforcement, traditional marriage, or institutional order. The difference is we don’t see those as moral issues.”
That’s not underweighting those foundations. That’s removing them from the moral category entirely which is exactly the pattern Haidt describes.
Ultimately, I don’t doubt the sincerity of the progressive Christians I spoke with this week. But sincerity isn’t the same as accuracy.
A worldview that makes your own heart the final authority (above the text, above 2,000 years of consistent teaching) is a worldview that can never be corrected. Every hard teaching gets replaced by “but love.” Every moral boundary gets reframed as legalism. But that’s not freedom.
Anyone who’s loved an addict knows that removing every boundary doesn’t set someone free. It just removes the only things that might have saved them. It’s a prison with no walls… a place where you can wander anywhere, but no one can ever tell you you’ve gone the wrong way.
The deep end of Christianity isn’t the version that tells you what you want to hear. It’s the one that loves you enough to tell you what you need to hear.

Indiana’s 10 Commandments Bill

Tim J. Clark Uncategorized

Indiana’s failed 10 Commandments bill was part of an ongoing national debate – THE INDIANA CITIZEN

During HB 1086’s public testimony in committee, Zachary Parish, the co-founder of the Secular Education Association, said the intent of the bill was to enforce religion in classrooms. 

“The debate around the Ten Commandments and public schools had been long settled,” Parrish said. “The intent of the bill is very clear.”

Executive director of the Indiana Family Institute, Ryan McCann, said the Ten Commandments is the foundation of Western law as well as moral instruction. 

“We really think this is a no-brainer to encourage this kind of morality within Western civilization,” McCann said. “They’re really the basis of morality and understanding that we have in our country … and how to live together as citizens.”