Kevin M Young and the Singular Historical Orthodox Christian Perspective
In which I link my world piece, welcome new readers, and have a little bit of fun
First of all, I’m in WORLD this morning! I wrote about TEC changing its lovely old shield into a Pride one:
What are the consequences of taking away the signs and symbols of Christian faith and replacing them with those of the LGBTQ+ movement? At the very least, the old shield was dignified and the new one is, well, just vulgar. The old version welcomed the worshipper into the solemn, historic, and Biblical rhythms of morning and evening prayer. The new shield, by contrast, declares a rigid creed of self-affirmation and self-acceptance, one that, wrapped ironically in the sign of God’s wrath, turns the worshipper inward toward herself rather than outward toward God’s grace.
Read the whole thing!
Second of all, a very warm welcome to all of you who have found your way from Alisa Childer’s podcast. I know I said that yesterday, but I feel, really, that one cannot be welcomed too much. If I could, I would bring you some flowers from my garden.
Third of all, as a special treat, I thought it would be fun to take a gander at Kevin M Young’s page to see how he is fairing. He recently tweeted this:
There is literally no such thing as a singular HISTORIC ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE on cultural topics. There is virtually no doctrinal issue upon which all Christians have fully agreed, at any point. Even the Creeds had/have dissenters. “Length of Time Believed” is not the way we decide theological orthodoxy in a fallen world. And if “Length of Time Believed” WAS the way we determined orthodoxy, then we would be wholly antisemite, deplorably patriarchal, deeply misogynist, excruciatingly racist, and bent towards evil Empire. We use discernment, in each generation, which takes into account the past but is not beholden to it, as the Spirit continues to move among us and move the world (like us) towards redemption. Wisdom, the Spirit, “Love of Neighbor,” Luke 4:18-21, and a better sense of the God who has always moved from exclusion toward inclusion is a far better way to navigate orthodoxy in each generation.
I love how Dr. Kevin uses capital letters—so eye-catching, so perfect for a place like X. You can’t help but pause as your tired fingers scroll and scroll, looking for something—anything—of interest. Best of all is the bewitching medley of truth and falsehood. First, he says something fun and provocative, like that there is no such thing as a “singular” HISTORIC ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE on “cultural topics.” But because “singular” and “cultural topics” are lowercase, and “historic orthodox Christian perspective” is bellowed, of course, the mind shifts into gear one way or another, either into defensive irritation or the happiness of “being seen.” Either way, the scroller is intrigued and begins to wonder about everything. Then, before said scroller has time to stop and think for herself about what is true and what is false, Dr. Kevin spins the wheel again, explaining that “length of time believed” would mean that all of us would still be “excruciatingly” racist, anti-semitic, “deeply” misogynist, “deplorably” patriarchal, and “bent towards evil Empire.”
The only way out, explains Dr. Kevin, is to use “discernment.” It's ok to take the past “into account” but you mustn’t be “beholden” to it. The Spirit is still moving, don’t you know. The best way out of this manufactured, and, let us be perfectly honest, predictable trap is “Love of Neighbor.” That, and “inclusion” is, for Dr. Kevin, a “far better way to navigate orthodoxy in every generation.”
Incidentally, this is why any of us cobbling together our theological frameworks from Tweets is probably not the best idea. In some sense, of course, it’s all we have—for no one has time to read a book or take a class, and even if we did, which ones would we pick? But in all the other senses, it is not time to give up and just imagine that because Dr. Kevin thinks there’s been no “singular” historical orthodox Christian perspective there must not have been one and so we might as well all just give up and be affirming. One might, rather, find a reliably good church with a preacher who is able to work his way out of the theological paper bag, someone who has the framework himself and is able to reasonably communicate it to other people. This has been, through “history,” how believers have all come to know true things and to remain Christian.
Most crucially, though, we must observe how Dr. Kevin shifts the confidence of those who consume his content with wonder and delight away from the Bible—and even their own sense of faith at all—and onto him. It isn’t just that “Love of Neighbor” will become the rule, the measure by which everything is measured, but Dr. Kevin will judge what counts as love. It will be “inclusion.” Anything less, you will know if you scroll through his feed, is hateful.
So what of the claim that there is no “singular” historic orthodox Christian position on “cultural topics?” Of course, it depends on the topic. Certainly, I don’t think there is a singular historic orthodox Christian position on the genetic modification of wheat. I have read through the Bible a lot of times and I haven’t been able to find a case exactly made against urban sprawl. There are so many “cultural” topics in every single culture that get worked out in the hidden interplay between people as they relate to each other across generations, and the Bible doesn’t prescribe very many of them. And yet, of course, for the cultural topics that really do matter for us in these latter days, there have been historic orthodox Christian positions. The biggest one, the most relevant one, of course, is that marriage is between one man and one woman until one of them dies. Another one would be that children are a blessing from the Lord and not creatures to be cast away because they are inconvenient to the “flourishing” of the parents. Just because it would have never darkened the mind of someone like St. Augustine that people would come along fifteen hundred years later and want to try to change the sex of children from boy to girl or girl to boy and so didn’t weigh in doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been an obvious consensus across time and space.
Troublingly for people like Dr. Kevin—such that he has to just give up and lie—there’s been a consensus about the relationships between men and women in general, and marriage in particular, that has only been fully and completely dismantled in my lifetime. When I was a child, it was still vestigially there. A sudden and total rejection of all history, culture, and scripture because we get to have AI now which must necessarily make men and women exactly the same does not make for “consensus.”
But more pressingly still, by tweeting in this way, Dr. Kevin wants you to doubt the Word—Jesus and his Scriptures which all speak about him (Jesus, not Kevin). For a better sense of the world and all that in there dwells, it behooves the Christian to read the Bible for herself, and not to take Dr. Kevin’s word that “Love of Neighbor” is the total, guiding principle of everything. Actually, “Love of God” goes first. And what “love” means is not a vague, happy sense of acceptance of his Person. Rather, love is about obedience. And of course, obedience, for all of us, is impossible, which is why Jesus came to die on the cross for our sins.
About that fact—that he came to die in your place because you couldn’t, and wouldn’t obey and therefore deserved to be separated from him for eternity—there is consensus. Again, just because some people today think that the death of the Son, in the words of Richard Dawkins, is appalling (I think that’s what he said), doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.
The death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus for the salvation of the sinner is at the heart of the Christian faith. There is consensus on that point and always has been.
And now, I must run along because we are here in an adorable Pennsylvania town for the next three days, and I want to poke around. Have a lovely day!
Young uses a common rhetorical trick: if there is dissent on a topic historically, we can’t call it the orthodox position. By this rationale, there is no such thing as orthodoxy, which is ultimately what he would like us to believe. But this is a ridiculous position that confuses unanimity and consent. Vincent of Lerins spoke of the faith confessed “everywhere, always, and by all.” He didn’t mean there was never dissent. He meant that despite dissent, this faith was confessed broadly across the Christian world and across time.
Young is a poster child of the Church of What’s Happening Now.