re: Stephen Bullivant, I watched the exchange. It illustrated the same old all or nothing, either-or, false dichotomizing: Anyone who critiques a rigoristic, traditionalistic legalism must therefore necessarily embrace an insidious antinomianism. (It's curious how often these are the same folks who imagine that all who reject their naive realism must otherwise necessarily be radically deconstructive postmodernists.)
As we aspire to harmonize our lives with divine and natural laws, it is, instead, a question of prudential judgment that we raise in our deliberations as we consider what might be the most suitable means toward those ends. We cannot a priori know whether pastoral accommodations or positive laws, whether ecclesiastical or public, will be more vs less effective. It's a worthwhile debate that shouldn't be cursorily dismissed, especially not by a facile category error.

Labels: moderation: safe