Rod Dreher has written a response to my response. In the post, he writes
Andrew has taken Jesus’s radical message of forgiveness and turned it into a theological justification for sexual license.
In the comments section, he summarizes:
Andrew endorses Jesus’s radical call for renunciation of everything except the one thing Andrew himself is not prepared to renounce. And that is telling.
But that is not what I wrote. I wrote the following in plain English:
The notion that Jesus was a free love kinda guy is also preposterous, and I never wrote otherwise. His sexual radicalism is as extreme as his property radicalism (give away everything, including your home).
How is describing Jesus sexual radicalism, which involves "a level of grace that leaves sexual desire behind entirely" a theological justification for sexual license? At this point, I'd suggest, Rod is arguing with himself, not me.
