Standard time in the summer time!

Well, okay, it's technically late spring, but it's pretty hot out here in Arizona. This year for our family vacation, I decided to bring the curmudgelings to the only place in the continental United States where they could still experience time in the manner in which it was created to be experienced, without the onerous and rebellious hand of the federal government interfering with our precious religious liberties.

It being Father's Day and everything, I thought it important to set an example of patriarchal excellence for my vast legion of readers to emulate. Don't let Daylight Stupid Time oppress your family any longer!

[While we're here, Mrs. Curmudgeon mentioned something about visiting a "grand canyon." Still not sure about her priorities.]

"Masterpiece Cakeshop" as a harbinger of defeat

First Things posted excellent analyses of the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court decision by R.R. Reno, Hadley Arkes, and Darel E. Paul last week. As Paul notes, the extremely narrow decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, does not represent a victory for religious liberty but instead is a "harbinger of defeat."

Masterpiece Cakeshop is owned by baker Jack Phillips, who declined to make a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple due to his Christian convictions. The couple complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held against him. Phillips made his appeal primarily on free speech grounds: namely, were he to be required to design a cake which promoted a point of view to which he objects, that would be a form of state-compelled speech. Curiously, the religious liberty question receded to the background of the case. Yet more curiously, Kennedy's ruling addressed neither of these First Amendment issues, but instead overturned the Commission because one of its commissioners spoke of Phillips' religious convictions in disparaging terms.

In other words, as Reno puts it, the Commission failed to be sufficiently nice for Kennedy's tastes. But as Reno argues,

So Kennedy has always been deluded. Every use of anti-discrimination rhetoric necessarily demonizes those who do not join the chorus of affirmation. …The Colorado commissioner who implied that Jack Phillips was “despicable” was simply following through on the cultural logic. Kennedy is kidding himself if he thinks he can use the postwar anti-discrimination tradition to empower the LGBT agenda—while at the same time preventing religious believers and others from being attacked legally, economically, and culturally.

The commentary on Slate's "Amicus" podcast supported Reno's point when Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern described the commissioner's comments as reasonable characterizations. When reading the various opinions from the Supreme Court justices, it appears the majority of the Court differs from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission not on substance, but on style. That offers little hope for those of us who agree with Jack Phillips.

"Churches," not "Church"

I direct your attention to the Washington Post article, "The sin of silence: the epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the evangelical church," not so we may discuss its subject, but instead so that we may discuss the way in which it discusses its subject. To wit: is there such thing as an "evangelical church" which exists in the manner that headline implies it exists? 

As author Joshua Pease writes, "Without a centralized theological body, evangelical policies and cultures vary radically…." Precisely so. There is no evangelical Church: there are only evangelical Churches.

Evangelicalism is a diverse social, theological and ecclesiological phenomenon: it includes a wide range of types of Church government, from congregational to presbyterian to episcopal. The very fact that it encompasses nearly every sort of Church government imaginable means there is not, nor can ever be, an evangelical "Church" in a manner comparable to the "Roman Catholic Church." While the "Church of Rome" itself contains a surprisingly diverse portfolio of theological views and its governing structures are somewhat more complex and sophisticated than most Protestants grasp, it is nonetheless a defined body with a clear hierarchical authority structure, and therefore one may reasonably ask, "Is there an epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church?" Bishops may or may not enforce discipline, cardinals may or may not pressure the pontiff to enact and enforce clear policies, but whatever may occur we know who is in charge and who to hold accountable. We (or at least the media and Roman Catholics) may be able to determine who to call in order both to get answers and to get something done.

Not so amongst evangelical Churches. One congregation has excellent accountability structures, while another has none whatsoever; these contrasts are found even between Churches which are nominally part of the same "network" (ex. Acts 29) or "convention" (ex. the Southern Baptists). As Pease writes, 

Diagnosing the scope of the problem isn’t easy, because there’s no hard data. …The problem in collecting data stems, in part, from the loose or nonexistent hierarchy in evangelicalism.

I'm not picking on Pease because I'm a pedant (or at least, not only because I'm a pedant), but because the headline of his article (which he may not have written himself) is only the latest example of a chronic problem to cross my transom. Particularly when discussing perceived problems within evangelical congregations, writers and speakers will refer broadly to "the evangelical Church" or "the Reformed Church," and ask why "the evangelical Church" or "the Reformed Church" doesn't do something about "x." The answer is not, as seems often to be assumed, that "the evangelical Church" is indifferent; it is that there is no evangelical Church. Accordingly, it is impossible to reform, or even change, the evangelical Church.

Next week the 85th General Assembly of my communion, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is to meet on the campus of Wheaton College, that famed evangelical redoubt. As a Church, the OPC can make changes (to Church government, for example) which affect every member congregation because the OPC is a Church (singular) which operates under a unified system of government. If the OPC suffers an epidemic of denial about sexual abuse (and it's not my purpose here to suggest it does), then our system of government offers genuine hope that something can be done about it.

I sympathize with those who wish to reform the evangelical Church, with regard to sexual abuse or anything else. As my own professional vocation has been, in part, to play the role of reformer in a small way, I know what the struggle is like. I have had the advantage, however, of working within clearly defined government structures as I have pursued my reform agenda. Those who wish to reform the evangelical Church would do well to recognize there are only evangelical Churches, and to ask whether the absence of a defined hierarchical government is not itself a part of the problem they seek to redress and reform.