Bravehearts and Blackhearts? Milo Yiannopoulos’s and Jordan Peterson’s Divine Gambits

“Anybody who only preaches a namby-pamby God, and not the highly masculine God of Scripture, is leaving young men vulnerable to the monstrous false gods of race and ideology.” –Yiannopoulos

 

Prefatory material: My views alone to be sure. Why give this man any time at all? As my Senator Al Franken puts it, because of “lies and the lying liars who tell them.” Milo is no angel to be sure, but for persons even relatively informed about him the pathetic hit pieces get old (a good response on that one, even if the author is wrong about the Reformation).

+++

I’ll admit it. Men like Milo Yiannopoulos and Jordan Peterson make me think of the popular 1995 movie Braveheart. That award-winning film featured the story of the courageous William Wallace, who, in order to free his people from the British, fought not just a culture war but a real war.

As portrayed by the traditionalist Roman Catholic “bad boy” Mel Gibson, the character of William Wallace is, like Yiannopoulos, not an angel. One of the more dramatic moments in the movie occurs when the dying British King is informed by his unadoring wife that his heir is anything but – she carries the child of William Wallace. All, of course, in the service of goodness — another victory for Wallace and his people!

Wallace is the imperfect hero – imperfect if we take the 10 commandments as our measuring stick that is – that we can’t help but love. Sure, I might not want to have the man around my wife, but look how he fights! Here is a man who knows how to defeat those on the side of the lie… of evil!

“Pope Benedict XVI is still the wisest and most erudite man in Europe, though I’m sure he doesn’t deserve to have me hung around his neck as an admirer.” — Yiannopoulos

 

How he inspires and motivates us! In spite of the flaws of such men, how, some of us might think, can God Himself not be impressed?

I thought of that also when I read Milo Yiannopoulos’s interview with the Jesuit magazine America. Like his interview with NPR, this is one conversation that was never was released for the public.[i] In the interview we read this…

Maybe you mean it’s shocking that I’m always joking about my lack of chastity and my fondness for black dudes, but I still call myself Catholic. And I don’t see what’s so shocking about that, either. One of the most famous saints of all time, sixteen centuries ago, prayed, ‘Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.’”…

You don’t see me disputing the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. There’s no intellectual tension, because I wouldn’t dream of demanding that the Church throw away her hard truths just to lie to me in hopes I’ll feel better about myself. I love the truth, not lies, and I know no one’s feelings are the basis of truth.

That’s why I don’t understand those Catholics — such as, if you’ll forgive my horrid impertinence, this magazine’s editor at large, Fr. Martin — who imply that if people don’t like what the Church says, maybe the Church is wrong or should apologize. The Church was founded on a rock and a cross, not on a hug.

Still, if you insist I talk about feelings, I’ve said before that I feel there’s something wrong with the fact that my lovemaking can’t produce the mini-Milo’s I’d like to have. How’s that for a subjective confirmation of the Church teaching that same-sex attraction is “objectively disordered” because it can’t lead to procreation?[ii]

Yiannopoulos has several conservative fans who will tell you that he doing the Lord’s work, who, after all, has been known to use evil for good. On the other hand, some persons, probably on both the political left and the right, think that Yiannopoulos is a simple attention-seeker: a fraud and a mere play actor.

“My personal motto, ‘laughter and war,’ comes from a passage in Chesterton’s Heretics.” — Yiannopoulos

 

I don’t think that is the case at all (Vox doubts this to, sounding a bit scared[iii]). I think he genuinely believes in God. And as he says in the interview – an interview which lauds Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, Flannery O’Connor, G.K. Chesterton, and Hilaire Belloc – I think that he really does hold that the previous Pope, Benedict – a.k.a, Cardinal Ratzninger, “God’s Rottweiler” – is the greatest intellectual force of our day.[iv] I also think that he does really believe that God’s law is true – and that homosexual relations are, to say the least, “objectively disordered”.

Yiannopoulos soldiers on under the banner of the Roman Catholic church, seemingly unfazed by the whole situation.

And so, is this how it works in his mind?: I fight on the side of God, in His cause. And He, in return, overlooks my sins.

Ah, but he doesn’t say that at all. What does he say instead? Right after the above quote he says this:

Bottom line: The Church says I’m not culpable for my temptations, but I shouldn’t sin. She’s right. And her founder said He came to heal those who knew they were sick, so I don’t despair.

Humility, you see. By not asserting that he is in God’s good graces, but by saying that he hopes in God’s grace and mercy! “Doing his best,” he “has some way to go.”

Heroes of Milo’s!? Good, but must consider this.

 

Think he doesn’t know anything about humility either? Well, compared with others, there actually does seem to be a bit more self-awarenesss than we often find among the famous….

Growing up Catholic also taught me the value of humility, even if that’s not exactly a forte of mine. This virtue is important for society, because it teaches us to be tolerant of a diversity of opinions, rather than arrogantly trying to silence people we disagree with. And it’s important for me personally, because despite my vanity, I know I’m not as smart as Thomas Aquinas or as good as St. Francis.

There’s a great line from the novelist Flannery O’Connor, who liked to shock and troll a bit herself: “I’m not limited to what I personally feel or think; I’m a Catholic.” She meant the same thing Chesterton did in his famous quip, “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” Political correctness gives us thin gruel and loneliness. The Church gives us a grand party with red meat and red wine.

Perhaps a word of comfort is in order? Is this not what the Reformation was all about? Grace – “a grand party with red meat and red wine” – for poor sinners oppressed by the heavy burden of the law?

Well, this comes to mind: persons like Martin Luther, the 16th century church reformer, both upheld the law and thought that he absolutely needed to obey it. For someone like Luther, grace could not be cheap. What kind of good and faithful servant disregards His Master’s commands? Who would dare think that the Lord isn’t serious about what He commands? Who would dare think, for example, that His moral law is evolving? Not Luther.

Conceivably, Milo knows about humility in this world – and how to make good jokes about it to boot. The question is if he knows about it before God. Or – if he genuinely just hopes that God, gradually healing him through the grace he finds himself able to cooperate with, will be so good to bless him in the life to come the way He has presumably blessed him here. [v] For example, as he has been blessed with his new husband — something one of his most ardent and sophisticated traditional Catholic supporters, at least, doesn’t seem terribly concerned about.

Lectured by Milo?: “Sins of the flesh, let us remember, are at the bottom of the scale. The Church says self-righteousness is at the top.”

 

In truth, for all the things that a person like Milo might be right about, I get the impression that he isn’t ultimately serious about God or His law where it counts the most.[vi] If he were, he would recognize that human beings must be completely infected by sin (he says human nature is good) and that no one can hope to “win” God’s gracious favor by the grace-empowered good one does — even if that person were, for the sake of argument — actually saving Western civilization.

And lest anyone else get the mistaken idea that this is all about sex — and since Milo apparently doesn’t mind being compared to Jesus all that much — I offer you this short account of our Lord’s fear, love, and trust in His heavenly Father, who fulfilled God’s law on our behalf:

• He perfectly loved the Lord, His God with all his heart, soul, strength and mind
• He loved His neighbor as Himself, always doing for them as He desired they do for Him
• He did indeed! – insofar as He could. Not by excising the First table of the commandments from the “Golden Rule” or notions of the “common good,” for “natural law” minus the first table not only cannot save but teaches wrongly
• In other words, Jesus Christ always called upon and proclaimed the Name of the Creator who has acted very specifically in history, doing mighty deeds in the world for our good.
• He always listened to God’s Holy Spirit, who, as Martin Luther said, gives “all truth, wherever it might be.”
• Finally, Jesus worshiped His Father, God as He truly is and is in our history, from a pure heart, never doubting for a minute the truth of the Scriptures

Evidently, God is not one with the idea that when the scales are weighed in His sight, that any individual’s grace-empowered good deeds — starting with one’s willing cooperation — can outweigh one’s bad…

Acts 24:24b-25a: “he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed…”

 

Lest you think this is merely me talking, I give you the Apostle Paul:

• For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
  
• For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “…who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” (Romans 11:32-33, 35)
  
• Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being^[a] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20).

Worthless lot. Every one (see the whole of Romans 3 if you don’t believe me!) From Adam, none of us traitorous blackhearts deserve mercy. No matter what kind of deeds we do, think we do, or others think we do.

Then you’ll have to heed Paul brother… “We Catholics are better at clothes, food, and parties. Why shouldn’t we be better at guilt, too?” — Yiannopolous

 

Another man who makes me think about the hero portrayed in Braveheart is the increasingly famous Jordan Peterson (who, as of this writing, just finished another biblical lecture in Canada). And, as I said in the past, he has all “all of the clarity and courage of someone like Yiannopolous, but without the self-proclaimed ‘dangerous faggot’s’ liabilities.”[vii]

Nevertheless, those bulleted lists above can apply to Peterson as easily as they can Yiannopolous. Essentially, Peterson seems to basically share Yiannopolous’ view of what it takes to save a human being – justification through one’s good deeds (and, unlike Milo, when it comes to morality, I have heard very little from Peterson that contradicts the Bible[viii]). In one of his lectures on the Bible from a[n evolutionary] psychologist’s perspective, Peterson even evoked the picture of the fearsome Christ who judges the world — from the book of Revelation! — as a helpful figure for spurring one on to good deeds! Overall, he paints a picture of our commitments and corresponding actions – no doubt done from the purest of motivations we can muster – being able to not only save us from the future we face in this life, but as being that which may very well echo in eternity… They are something that can provide us with a real hope in whatever life there is to come.

This is the Divine gambit.

Seriously though… For the love of God, don’t go there! Instead, hear the Word of the Lord.

“Faith lives in repentance” – Phillip Melanchton, theologian and the father of universal education for all

 

I understand that there are some in the Christian world that think that persons like Milo – and even Peterson, given his lack of Christian profession in spite of his general friendliness to it – should be talked to in a gentle way. Treated with kid gloves (I can’t say, like the “Church Militant” site that published Milo’s interview, that he has not encouraged anyone to act on their sexual inclinations — on the contrary, he consistently promotes extramarital sex).

Well, they are big boys. They, no doubt better than most, can handle it, just like they can dish it out and do. Dig into those Bible passages, men – and think about the experiences of someone like Luther, whose conscience knew what God’s Law demanded!

Give him a read to (start with the Small and Large Catechisms). He was not wrong when he put it this way:

“This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc.

But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the Gospel, i.e., become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise….”

+++

As far as Yiannopolous is concerned, I’m sure he will continue to say that conservative Christians, in his experience, have been considerably kind and gracious with persons like himself, exploding every myth of their purportedly hateful attitudes towards gays.

If he reads this, he might even say that about me.

“The fact that so many of us think hurting people’s feelings is the greatest evil says all you need to know about the decline of our civilization.”

 

Because I think that he does – at least more than most in the media! – really care about the truth. And he respects those who say hard truths (like Peter Scaer addressing an issue close to his heart!) and who don’t back down – ever.

As he says: “Pray for me. I need it.”

That’s definitely something I need to.

I will pray.

FIN

 

Images:

Benedict pic by Mangouste35, CC BY-SA 3.0 ;  Milo Yiannopoulos photos by @Kmeron ; Milo on throne used with permission from @KingCrocoduck (Twitter).

Notes:

[i] Eventually, only after Yiannopoulos posted the interview, NPR released a few mere minutes of the longer conversation. Vox reports: “A representative for the publication told Vox on Friday, ‘We can confirm that an interview with Mr. Yiannopoulos was conducted by one of America’s occasional contributors and was not accepted by America for publication. As a general matter, America does not comment further on editorial decisions about why articles are not accepted for publication.’”

[ii] Earlier in the interview, he said this: “Frankly, what’s really shocking is that a poor sinner like me has spoken out more on contraception than 99% of our bishops, who seem too preoccupied with diversity and climate change to talk about God.”

[iii] “But if Yiannopoulos is totally sincere about his right-wing Catholicism — a rarity for a man sincere about so little else — that might prove more unsettling still. If he can combine Steve Bannon’s apocalyptic worldview with his ability to manipulate the thoroughly temporal worlds of Twitter and college campuses alike, he might prove almost as dangerous as he wants us to think he is.”

[iv] From the Vox piece: “Yiannopoulos praised Francis’s predecessor, Benedict XVI, as “the wisest and most erudite man in Europe,” celebrating his willingness to “declare publicly that Islam’s irrationalism is one of the world’s great problems” — a reference to a controversial speech Benedict gave in 2006.”

[v] Unsurprisingly, Yiannopoulos has expressed sympathy towards types of Christianity which flirt with “health and wealth” doctrines. He’d “like to believe in the prosperity Gospel,” he says.

[vi] From the interview: “I’ve already quoted St. Augustine, who had his own pelvic issues. I once tweeted out an illustrated page from his Confessions that began, ‘I will now recall my past foulnesses.’ That’ll work for my memoirs someday, too.” It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

[vii] https://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/why-i-cant-not-love-the-noble-pagan-jordan-peterson-and-be-concerned/

[viii] In a recent Q and A for his Patreon supporters, I did hear him encourage someone who called themselves “asexual” to not only get a sex therapist but to find a partner that they could feel comfortable with and who might be able to ease them into sexual activity. Marriage is presumably not in a picture like this.

Advertisement

 

Milo Yiannopoulos’s Most Dangerous Bomb Toss, Whether He is Aware of it or Not

No offense Milo, but its true.

 

+++

He is a Brit, Jewish and Greek in ethnicity, and identifies as both a practicing gay and “bad Catholic”. To be sure, one of the most controversial and colorful characters in the world of right-wing politics and culture today is Milo Yiannopoulos.

He says, however, that there is a method to his madness. He claims that because of his sexual orientation and sexual preferences (i.e. black males), is able to get away with sharing “hate facts” that others cannot say. Shocking people out of their complacency and simple-minded categories he aims to start conversations. This then opens the door for others, who in a more gentle and reasonable way, can persuade those who remain persuadable.

At the same time, Yiannopoulos makes Ann Coulter’s bomb-throwing look remarkably tame by comparison. His talks are laced with profanity, insult and overt and not-so-overt sexual references.

I contend that Yiannopoulos’s most dangerous bomb is also one of his most covert – even though it is presumably the basis for his entire program. Sometimes, he has summed this up as:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

Elsewhere, he has claimed that “words only have the power you give them”.

This is Yiannopoulos’s biggest bomb. This is the phrase that should start the biggest conversation. Is he just saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” (even this, we know, is not fully true) – or something more?

Words are connected with all kinds of things. All kinds of things which exert their presence and influence our lives. And if we know – or even just believe – that there are some things in life that endure in our shared sojourn together on earth, then we cannot accept what Yiannopoulos claims. In other words, his words do not only not have enduring power, but ultimately, no real power at all.

And not because we don’t give them power, but because they are untrue. Unreal.

Regardless of what this world’s power-brokers think. Regardless of how much they want to say that truth is power and power is truth and you can just see this by looking at the evidence.

No.

There really are things that are “trans-historical” and “trans-cultural”. There are things that will never fail to impress themselves upon all of us (things like fathers, mothers, joy, tears, food, and animals) and there are things that only have, due to the geographical and cultural limitations of some of us, the potential to impress (like snow and fish).

In sum, insofar as we are human creatures, we cannot avoid speaking about things that exist, that are real, that are true. We cannot avoid saying things that are true (we can only deny so much of the truth).

This is why saying “words only have the power you give them” is not the full story.

To sum things up, as I noted in a past post:

“A person who is conservative… would continue to agree with the words of the late Russel Kirk – or, perhaps, at least want to agree with him: “[conservatives are] all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.” “Conservatives” who say that what Kirk says is “no longer true” or irrelevant are being anything but conservative. After all, if what Kirk says is no longer true, how was it ever more than an illusion to begin with (given that he speaks of the words “constant” and “enduring” as if these terms mean something)?”

What Kirk says is also something that many of the ancient Greek philosophers, Yiannopoulos’s ancestors, would have upheld. It is certainly something that Christians have upheld and should continue to uphold. For if there is nothing that endures among men, the words we pass on cannot endure either…  at least, this is the illusion that begins to colonize our mind.

And then, the Word of God, which endures forever, cannot endure among us.

But the Word of the Lord does endure forever. And, the “hate fact” of the matter is that it doesn’t matter whether or not you think you can ignore it by not “giving it power”.

Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum, or the Word of the Lord Endures Forever is the motto of the Lutheran Reformation.

FIN

 

(for more thoughts on this topic see this post, always open for comment and critique – and for philosophical justifications for the things I say here, see this: http://worldagainstmerages.blogspot.com/2015/10/several-theses-combined-with-some.html)

 

Note: This post was updated for the sake of clarifying the ideas therein on Jan. 28, 2017.

Images:

Milo Y. picture by @Kmeron for LeWeb13 Conference @ Central Hall Westminster – London (Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0))

 

Heartfelt Spiritual Counsel for “Fabulous Internet Supervillain” Milo Yiannopoulos

Brieitbart provacatuer Milo Yiannopoulos, a.k.a. “Nero”

I recently watched a couple of interviews (here and here) the ever controversial Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos did with “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson about his new movie “Torchbearer”. According to an article from the same Breitbart news, the film’s “thesis” is that “sin has become mainstream in Western culture, which will soon lead to societal destruction.”

Yiannopoulos himself, a vigorous proponent and practitioner of free speech, identifies as both gay (flauntingly so) and Roman Catholic, and so I wondered how he would interact with Robertson, who a few years ago was fired (and then re-hired following protests) for remarks about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Christian persecution is a topic of the aforementioned film, and according to Yiannopoulos’ boss Alexander Marlow, he was “very touched” during the film at the Cannes festival in France (where the interviews also took place). In Yiannopoulos’ own words, during the movie he was often “clutching [his] crucifixes and having tearful moments.” His being greatly affected by the film was in evidence during the interviews as well, as he complemented Robertson about the movie: “it even changed my mind about you…. I thought ‘this guy is smart and compassionate – I want to meet this guy.’”

Robertson: if they don’t buy it [the Gospel] we love them and move on… we love them and move on…

In the second interview they discussed Robertson’s temporarily being fired in Dec. of 2013 for simply sharing the “list of sins” in the Bible in response to a question about homosexual practice (“read that list and see if you are in there…”, Robertson quipped about his usual practice of helping people discover their sins). When Robertson talked about his personal experience seeing notorious sinners become godly men and women, Yiannopoulos replied, “other kinds of Christians are Christians because they think they are good people. Catholics are Catholics because they know they are not”, and this prompted a quick “that’s a good point”, from the “Duck commander”. When he later insisted that the pardon and power of Jesus Christ definitely “works”, Yiannopoulos responded, “I’m looking for a ‘pray it away camp’ that will work for me”, making one think – even if just for a moment – that he was quite serious.[i]

Recently, at a talk at the University of California – Santa Barbara, Yiannopoulos expounded on matters like these further, in response to the question “how do you reconcile being a Roman Catholic and a homosexual”. He began by politely suggested that the man asking the question did not really understand Catholicism, stating in part (see full comment here) the following:

The catholic church is different from the Anglican strain of Christianity not just because they’re wrong….I can’t remember who said this, but people are Anglicans… they’re Baptists or Methodists or whatever because they believe they’re good people. Well, Catholics are Catholics because they know they’re not…. we have this thing called original sin….we go to church because we know we’re not good, and I think for me at least, at least certainly living the lifestyle I do, that’s a more honest approach to theology than other sorts of Christianity have to offer.[ii]

First of all, when it comes to his claim that some of these groups attribute goodness to human nature – and hence themselves personally – this does, in fact, describe the views of many liberal Protestants (not to mention Catholics!). Furthermore, even though many conservative Anglicans, Baptists and Methodists would undoubtedly take issue with Yiannopoulos’ claim here, whether or not the struggle that the Apostle Paul describes with his sinful nature, or flesh (see Romans 7 and Galatians 5) – as when he cries out “who will rescue me from this body of death?” – applies to Paul as a Christian (and hence to Christians today) is evidently an open question in even many of these more conservative churches. So far at least, this “habitual sinner” can really identify (throughout our lives we each face our own particular crosses, temptations…and even sins) with Yiannopoulos’ rather striking answers.

Lutherans who hold to their confessions assert that Romans 7 describes Paul after he became a Christian.

And yet, then we get to the issues of Yiannopoulos’ comments about “living the lifestyle I do”. Is there a fight vs. sin here, or a sense of resignation due to the futility of fighting? Here, it seems, is the crux of the issue, and this is where my challenge to Yiannopoulos lies. He playfully kids about not having feelings, and doesn’t put a lot of stock in how “fact-free” people “feel”. So here I note that however much – or little – Christians have disagreed among themselves, they have, until only very recently, always claimed to be putting forth Scriptural teachings that, because they do not change, are able to give us the hope we so desperately need. In short, because these teachings are rooted in the very character of God Himself, His eternal law and eternal Gospel do not change – they, as Robertson was keen to point out, offer an anchor of stability and goodness we can trust…

And what this means is that those teachings have always been seen by Christians as something we today call “objective” (just subtract any Enlightenment connotations from it!) – i.e. they exist in a certain way no matter what we, personally, might feel about them (for more, see part 2. here) This, of course, holds true even for “the most fabulous supervillain on the internet.” To put this delicately to Milo (and I hope he sees this), is it not hard to claim allegiance to Jesus Christ when one is frequently giving the impression that he doesn’t need or want His forgiveness – at least for this or that thing He calls “sin”?[iii]

Yiannopoulos graciously reminding us of the kind of adulation Jesus deserves.

This forgiveness, of course, is something far more personal than the removal of the threat of punishment – it is, in fact, the act of continuing in, or the act of being ushered into, the closest of relationships with Almighty God Himself. It is because of the fact of this relationship that when He calls us “sinners” and calls our desires and actions “sins”, we are able to not only bear with this, but actually able to exult and glory in His companionship! As the One who rescues us from sin, death, and the devil through His atoning death and resurrection, He is our lovely Alpha (and Omega) – worthy of our highest honor, praise, and worship!

For non-Christians reading this, let me be clear: when it comes to considering our sins vis a vis such a One, there need be no “animus” towards any particular kind of sinner here. In other words, when it comes to particular Christians retaining these traditional views, there may well be as little “homophobia” in this or that case (here is what I published the day after last year’s Obergefell decision – homophobic?) as there is with Mr. Yiannopoulos’ purported misogyny, racism, or “transphobia”. This is something I have no doubt he would say “Amen” to.[iv] Blanket charges of “bigotry” and “animus” towards more traditional viewpoints like ours[v] are not only careless – they are, frankly, without a whiff of reason (just because I tell my children they are wrong when they are wrong, for example, doesn’t mean that I don’t love them).

In sum, to talk about the importance of all Christians acknowledging and confessing all of their sins is not to exult in self-righteousness (“I thank God we ‘good Christians’ are not like other men”) – thinking one is a Christian because one, over and against one’s fellow human beings, is or does good.

At the same time, neither is it to assert that our sin cannot sabotage the Christian life God grants. For example, when it comes to particularly nefarious and soul-killing sins like self-righteousness (a species of pride), perhaps Milo might readily say “Amen!” to what one Lutheran Christian on Twitter recently said: “Lord, forgive my sin. More importantly, forgive my righteousness, by which I suppose I have no sin, or little sin, or not as much as others.”

The advice is sound – even as we also realize that such righteousness would not be the true righteousness Christ creates “in us” (sanctification) by His being “for us” (justification), outside of us (see 2 Cor. 5). Such “righteousness” would rather be that which our “old Adam” claims – for it is we according to our sinful nature who are always eager not only to count and measure our progress over and against others – but to earn God’s final approval!

But that we cannot do, nor should we try. As the controversial Roman Catholic writer and renegade priest Brennan Manning said, it is like a plumber looking at Nigara Falls and saying “I think I can fix this” (read Romans 3!). No – for us it is simply as Jesus said: “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Luke 17:10). And the approval that ultimately matters comes in the peace and certainty He gives in, with, and through His own beloved Son’s sacrifice for us (see Rom. 5:1 and I John 5:12-13) – we stand before Him not because we are good, but He is. Of this we may be reminded again when we pray “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

Grace for sinners indeed! We bow to our kind Lord and Master – and perhaps kiss His feet and wipe them with our tears.

I am indeed pleased that Milo wants to identify with Jesus Christ and the great Christian tradition. And yet, if he is going to endeavor to speak for it, I would hope that he would be at great pains to accurately represent it. When something is as good as this – “as good as it gets” in fact! – you don’t want to get it wrong.

Jesus Christ: fabulously humble and simple – for us.

Dive in “Nero”. Jesus Christ, always provocative, had the utter nerve to say that His words were spirit and life, right? He further asserted that we live by every word that comes from the mouth of God! Who did – Who does – He think He is? (the caps might give that away)

In sum, Christianity is even better than the most fabulous earthly things we can imagine.

Bow, brother. Of course this habitual sinner is ready to stand by you through it all.

FIN

 

[i] Yiannopoulos has, in the past, said both that he wishes that he wasn’t gay, and that he thinks that God made him the way that he is in order to help him to overcome the atmosphere of identity politics, utterly confounding the academic left (and “just to make the heads of feminists spin”).

[ii] More from his comment: “Though here’s the thing: progressives will sometimes demand all manner of complex and weird acknowledgements themselves…they want to be a gender-queer-blah-blah – throw in cis… blah, blah but what they can’t seem to understand is other people asking for the same acknowledgement that life is messy and complicated, and that sometimes things aren’t fully recognized or realized or pulled together in your own mind and sometimes it takes a lifetime of study or prayer…”

This part of Yiannopoulos’s answer is perfect if the intention is merely to show that those who oppose him (generally on the left) are often inconsistent and irrational. But of course if he wants to strongly put forth the beliefs of his church as being different – that is of being rational and reasonable – his answer falls short.

[iii] Yiannopolous is known as a conservative in today’s cultural and political environment. That said, does his theological approach in fact resemble that of another provocateur, Nadia Bolz-Weber, whose Christianity, in turn, bears a striking resemblance to the philosophy of Hegel?

[iv] Yiannopoulos talks in the first interview about Robertson holding a “perfectly respectable opinion” that millions of Americans hold.

[v]  I have crtically touched on aspects of the “cultural libertarianism” he expounds on here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/what-does-the-rise-of-trump-have-to-do-with-science-and-christianity/

 

Image credits (Creative Commons): Milo Yiannopoulos, photo by @Kmeron ; Phil Robertson speaking at CPAC 2015 in Washington, DC., by Gage Skidmore ; Milo on throne used with permission from @KingCrocoduck (twitter) ; Palm Sunday 10 by Waiting for the Word.