UK Methodists Drop 'Husband and Wife' From Marriage Vows
Earlier today, Kevin wrote a piece about his friends and fellow comedians who had banished him to the outer darkness over politics. These people will continue to support Biden or whoever takes his place, no matter how desperate things become. They would rather see the nation descend into a post-apocalyptic hellscape, complete with Mad Max-style car chases and cannibalistic, radioactive mutants lurking in underground bunkers than cast a vote for Donald Trump. Kevin titled the column, “Leftists Would Rather Send Their Kids to War Than Vote for ‘Orange Man Bad.'”
But why is that? The reasons are legion, but one of them is style. Leftists want to maintain their ability to keep their places among the cultural and intellectual elite — consequences be damned.
As a former Leftist, I see today’s progressivism, which is still managing to hold on despite the chaos and rubble the Biden administration is creating, like my first Ralph Lauren polo shirt. When I was a kid, we were never broke, although we did stray close to the poverty line a few times. And once, through a bit of luck, I found myself in possession of a genuine Ralph Lauren polo shirt. This was a big thing for someone whose family shopped in the bargain bins more often than not. I looked good, and I felt confident. After all, it was quite the step up.
And so I wore it, and wore it, and wore it. I wore it until the navy blue was a sickly shade of gray. I wore it until there were holes in the armpits and the collar and sleeves were frayed. I wore it until the polo player resembled an obese, inebriated golfer. And I continued to wear it after that. Why? Because it was Ralph Lauren. The whole episode would have made for T.S. Eliot’s poem: “The Wardrobe of J. Alfred Prufrock.” Leftists today continue to wear the same threadbare, tattered, and moth-eaten garments of progressivism because the label is just too chic.
Take churches, for example. Look at any mainline Protestant denomination. Chances are that on any given Sunday, you will see a small knot of people, many of them well along in years, mumbling prayers and rasping hymns among rainbow candles and a smattering of abortion pamphlets. Once-great church buildings are becoming mausoleums and charnel houses simply because the remnants of their congregations decided to don the trappings of progressivism.
The churches are dying, but that doesn’t matter. The congregants think they look good and believe themselves to be confident. The Episcopal church in which I grew up is one such place. Their polo shirts are ready for the trash can, but no one will admit it. And the trend shows no signs of abating.
The UK, of course, is much further along the road to ruin than the U.S., having gained about a twenty-year headstart. But we in the States are doing our best to keep up. Back in my radio days, the Brits were issuing dire warnings to us that “as we are now, so shall you be.”
The latest development in progressive madness from across the pond comes from the Methodist Church of England. According to The Christian Institute, the leadership has told its ministers to avoid using the words “husband” and “wife.” Not every marriage is between a husband and wife these days, you know. And who is to say that congregants or engaged couples even consider themselves to be men or women?
Better to stick to inclusive language, lest someone, somewhere, become aggrieved and demand apologies amidst great wailing and gnashing of teeth. On the other hand, a person wailing in the nave because they have been misgendered would present a wonderful opportunity for virtue signaling, so perhaps the leadership has not thought this issue completely through.
Instead of “husband” and “wife” or “brothers and sisters,” the church suggests using words like “parent,” “partner,” and “child.” From the article:
In sections addressing ‘gender identity’, the guide claimed that “using a person’s chosen pronouns is helpful as it honours their identity”, noting that those of “different genders may choose to use a gender-neutral title such as Mx”.
It added: “Language such as ‘brothers and sisters’, while intended to be inclusive and friendly, doesn’t take into account our non-binary friends”.
Members of the church are encouraged to share their own pronouns in conversations and to consult Stonewall or GLAAD if there are further questions.
The new set of instructions came in the latest edition of the church’s “Inclusive Language Guide” which is updated every six months. Every six months? What minister, even in the most woke of congregations, would be able to keep up with those mandates? These poor pastors will spend all of their time rewriting sermons and their liturgies so they can successfully complete another round of the Gender Hokey Pokey. It’s a veritable recipe for a church-wide mental breakdown among the ordinands. At this rate, church services will start to sound like meetings of the United Federation of Planets.
On his Substack, Fr. Calvin Robinson noted that the latest genuflection to the Holy Gender Unicorn is another step toward Marxism:
Liberalism teaches that heteronormativity is an option among other options. Marxism, via the Critical Theories, teaches that heteronormativity must be destroyed. The phrase ‘smash heteronormativity’ is often used by proponents of Queer Theory, Gender Theory, and even Critical Race Theory.
When the Methodist Church says ministers should no longer use the terms husband and wife, it is showing support for Marxism by partaking in the smashing of heteronormativity. To replace God’s order with the devil’s disorder. At the very least, the Methodist Church is saying it is more afraid of the world than it is of God.
The problem is clear. It is not possible to be both a communist and a Christian.
There is a component of “inclusivity” in Marxism. One is either in the Marxist fold or not. And woe to those who have not surrendered. Robinson notes that while the Methodist Church claims that “God loves you unconditionally, no strings attached,” its members would not extend the same courtesy to straight people.
Furthermore, God may love someone unconditionally, but that is not to say He will leave that person as He found them. The stories of Christ with the woman at the well and the woman accused of adultery bear that out. If God requires nothing of us and wishes to leave us as we are, then there is no need for a savior, and Christianity is no longer Christianity.
We may be witnessing some form of ecclesiastical Darwinism. The denominations that are set on maintaining the “approved narrative” as opposed to preaching the Gospel will become less and less relevant, and will eventually disappear. They value their social status above all else, and they find their tar pits comfortable, even as they sink up to their necks. And that may have been the point of the progressive movement all along.