(no subject)
My friend Justin's journal entry on Brian Erskine's "RU Underground" blog:
So the hot topic this evening is tonight's Diversity Rally put on by the Young Democrats, SPECTRUM, and Women's Studies (see Brian's post below). I'm sure everyone agrees that Brian's now "infamous" editorial in the Tartan ("Life of blatant, proud sin damages society) is the motivating force behind this rally, and since I've not yet publicly shared my thoughts on the article, I'm going to take this opportunity to do so.
Speaking as a conservative Christian (though my views aren't necessarily representative of all conservative Christians) my feelings for Brian's editorial are a little mixed. I should also point out that Brian (and myself), to the best of my knowledge, speaks from a perspective that the Bible is inerrant and infallible (in short, perfect and contradiction-free), so that must be understood right off the bat. First, one of my problems with the article is that it's not particularly tactful to quote the Book of Leviticus to make the "homosexuality is a sin" point. Leviticus is more or less a set of rules God gave to the Israelites that they essentially needed to stay in right relationship with God, and wasn't intended to form a doctrinal basis for Christians. The reason I say this is because I've too often heard comparisons between Brian's Levitical quotes and other scripture from Leviticus (and other mostly Old Testament passages taken out of context, see this facebook link), that try and make it seem ridiculous to be a Christian if we're expected to follow all these rules, including being "anti-gay". Of course as born-again believers we know that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient enough to pay that price and that we no longer need to follow a set of rigorous rules to "earn" our way to heaven, whereas the Jews of the day didn't have that luxury. In my opinion the most negative after-effect of Brian's article is the reinforced concept, in some people's minds, that Christianity is just another religion that follows a bunch of pointless "holier-than-thou" rules (again mostly through quoting Leviticus out-of-context). Quite conversely, Christianity is about God's grace through Jesus' sacrifice and faith in Him that frees us from our slavery to sin and religion (aka ritualistic rule-following or legalism), and gives us the best, most fulfilling life possible (not the mention the ONLY path to heaven).
However, don't take what I've just said to mean that I disagree with Brian, because Brian is without question correct about homosexuality being a sin. The New Testament scripture he quoted is more than sufficient to make his point, and the Bible is quite clear that God hates homosexuality (as he does all sin). So for me the question now begs, "Yeah, Brian's certainly right, but what's the point?" I admit I've wavered back and forth in deciding how necessary the article really is based on the points he's trying to make. If the point of the article is to simply state that homosexuality is a sin and Brian's just trying to get attention, as his haters have alleged, then the article probably is unnecessary (and perhaps damaging to the cause of Christ based on the points I made in the last paragraph). But if put in the context of God's redemptive grace and love for all homosexuals and sinners alike, then I would certainly be very favorable of the article. There were certainly glimpses of this when he talked about God's Agape love and premarital heterosexual sex being just as bad (a far cry from the "hate rhetoric" Brian's critics allege, eh?), but it didn't quite go far enough to completely satisfy me. I would personally emphasize that any one sin, no matter how supposedly little it is, is enough to separate a person from God's glory. No human deserves to go to heaven, and it's only by God's grace that any are allowed in (through repentance and acceptance of Jesus as their Savior). Christians therefore are no better than homosexuals or anyone living in sin (we're still sinners in fact); we've simply been made right in God's sight, not by our own actions or anything we've done. I know, that probably wasn't the point Brian was trying to make, but I'm honestly not 100% sure what the point of the editorial was (in general, he never really showed how homosexuality damages society, as the title suggests).
But what's really baffling to me is the response and rhetoric from the critics, mostly from the GLBT community, and this probably more directly relates to tonight's rally. "We will not be silenced!" Um, okay. I've heard this one a bazillion times since the publishing. Who says anyone's trying to silence anybody? I just don't get that at all. I've also heard a lot about how we should be tolerant of everything and how intolerant Brian and other right-wingers are. Um, hello, aren't you being "intolerant" of Brian's point of view? Christians don't pretend to tolerate homosexuality or any sin (but we do love the individual that does the sin); those who believe everyone should be tolerant of everything must admit contradiction. And c'mon, it's a little silly to say that Brian's comments were "threatening" and "sanctioned hate and violence." I know they're using the Levitical quotes for their platform, but no one really believes that Brian was sanctioning violence against gay people; the points he made about God's Agape love and so forth prove otherwise. These people are just grabbing for anything they can to gain sympathy points for their cause. It's amazing how irrationally the critics of Brian's editorial have acted toward something just because it goes against what they believe, even though they're preaching against that that very thing. In general, this whole thing has been a big mess in my view.
Comment 1, by Ms. Curiosity:
I belive that you, Justin Hawks, wrote a very nice response. I don't agree with it but it was still well written. One thing I don't understand, you typed "those who believe everyone should be tolerant of everything must admit contradiction," but in the first paragraph you typed, "Bible is inerrant and infallible (in short, perfect and contradiction-free)." So I ask, are you one of the people that does not believe that everyone should be tolerant since you don't admit contradiction in the Bible? (I do believe this land was built on tolerance.) Everything in life is not perfect and, in my opinion, that includes the Bible. I believe the Bible has some good points in it about how to live life, but isn't the only thing in life that is so-called perfect God and Christ?
Justin's reply:
Thanks for the nice comment. I do believe 100% that the Bible is "perfect" because it's author is the "perfect God and Christ" (speaking through divinely inspired men who wrote the Bible's books). Of course there's no way I can adequately address here all the issues that may prevent you or anyone from believing the divinity of the Bible (for instance, do you think it has contradictions? How can it be perfect if it was written by mere men? How do you know Jesus really rose from the dead and it's not a lie, etc, etc). I may not know all the answers in my head, but I do have them readily available when people ask, PLEASE feel free to contact me personally if you want to discuss this further. As far as the "tolerance" thing, I don't pretend to be okay with another person's belief system if those beliefs lead a person to hell, to put it bluntly. Again, I love the individual (homosexual or not, Christian or not) but not necessarily his/her beliefs. I'm not meaning to sound harsh, but there is only ONE way to heaven, and all other "paths" (Buddhism, Islam, atheism, etc) are essentially the same in that they all lead away from the truth. Now I REALLY hesitate to say all this, b/c I'm afraid it may seem like I'm trying to sound "better" than other people, but I'm not meaning to at all. Again it's only by God's grace that I'm "saved" and have his Truth living in me, NOT because of who I am or anything I've done, b/c I sure as hell don't deserve it. This same grace is available to anyone who believes in Jesus as their Savior and repents of their sins, no matter who they are (Mister Rogers or Osama bin Laden). I'm not one ounce about hate at all.
Justin FTW. I don't agree with all the xian stuff, but I really like his article because he actually BELIEVES in his faith, and it shows. He understands it, and doesn't spit out retarded bullshit like his co-blogger Brian Erskine.
People at my school are seriously being complete dumbasses lately, on both sides of this. My view: Brian Erskine's article was pretty much useless. He didn't say what he was trying to say (Justin just did). However, the people protesting are nearly as bad. HELLO FREE SPEECH MUCH???? Get off his case, damn. The people who support Christ on Campus and bitch out the people who are against it are the SAME PEOPLE PROTESTING HIS ARTICLE. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL SERIOUSLY, DON'T BE A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE.
So the hot topic this evening is tonight's Diversity Rally put on by the Young Democrats, SPECTRUM, and Women's Studies (see Brian's post below). I'm sure everyone agrees that Brian's now "infamous" editorial in the Tartan ("Life of blatant, proud sin damages society) is the motivating force behind this rally, and since I've not yet publicly shared my thoughts on the article, I'm going to take this opportunity to do so.
Speaking as a conservative Christian (though my views aren't necessarily representative of all conservative Christians) my feelings for Brian's editorial are a little mixed. I should also point out that Brian (and myself), to the best of my knowledge, speaks from a perspective that the Bible is inerrant and infallible (in short, perfect and contradiction-free), so that must be understood right off the bat. First, one of my problems with the article is that it's not particularly tactful to quote the Book of Leviticus to make the "homosexuality is a sin" point. Leviticus is more or less a set of rules God gave to the Israelites that they essentially needed to stay in right relationship with God, and wasn't intended to form a doctrinal basis for Christians. The reason I say this is because I've too often heard comparisons between Brian's Levitical quotes and other scripture from Leviticus (and other mostly Old Testament passages taken out of context, see this facebook link), that try and make it seem ridiculous to be a Christian if we're expected to follow all these rules, including being "anti-gay". Of course as born-again believers we know that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient enough to pay that price and that we no longer need to follow a set of rigorous rules to "earn" our way to heaven, whereas the Jews of the day didn't have that luxury. In my opinion the most negative after-effect of Brian's article is the reinforced concept, in some people's minds, that Christianity is just another religion that follows a bunch of pointless "holier-than-thou" rules (again mostly through quoting Leviticus out-of-context). Quite conversely, Christianity is about God's grace through Jesus' sacrifice and faith in Him that frees us from our slavery to sin and religion (aka ritualistic rule-following or legalism), and gives us the best, most fulfilling life possible (not the mention the ONLY path to heaven).
However, don't take what I've just said to mean that I disagree with Brian, because Brian is without question correct about homosexuality being a sin. The New Testament scripture he quoted is more than sufficient to make his point, and the Bible is quite clear that God hates homosexuality (as he does all sin). So for me the question now begs, "Yeah, Brian's certainly right, but what's the point?" I admit I've wavered back and forth in deciding how necessary the article really is based on the points he's trying to make. If the point of the article is to simply state that homosexuality is a sin and Brian's just trying to get attention, as his haters have alleged, then the article probably is unnecessary (and perhaps damaging to the cause of Christ based on the points I made in the last paragraph). But if put in the context of God's redemptive grace and love for all homosexuals and sinners alike, then I would certainly be very favorable of the article. There were certainly glimpses of this when he talked about God's Agape love and premarital heterosexual sex being just as bad (a far cry from the "hate rhetoric" Brian's critics allege, eh?), but it didn't quite go far enough to completely satisfy me. I would personally emphasize that any one sin, no matter how supposedly little it is, is enough to separate a person from God's glory. No human deserves to go to heaven, and it's only by God's grace that any are allowed in (through repentance and acceptance of Jesus as their Savior). Christians therefore are no better than homosexuals or anyone living in sin (we're still sinners in fact); we've simply been made right in God's sight, not by our own actions or anything we've done. I know, that probably wasn't the point Brian was trying to make, but I'm honestly not 100% sure what the point of the editorial was (in general, he never really showed how homosexuality damages society, as the title suggests).
But what's really baffling to me is the response and rhetoric from the critics, mostly from the GLBT community, and this probably more directly relates to tonight's rally. "We will not be silenced!" Um, okay. I've heard this one a bazillion times since the publishing. Who says anyone's trying to silence anybody? I just don't get that at all. I've also heard a lot about how we should be tolerant of everything and how intolerant Brian and other right-wingers are. Um, hello, aren't you being "intolerant" of Brian's point of view? Christians don't pretend to tolerate homosexuality or any sin (but we do love the individual that does the sin); those who believe everyone should be tolerant of everything must admit contradiction. And c'mon, it's a little silly to say that Brian's comments were "threatening" and "sanctioned hate and violence." I know they're using the Levitical quotes for their platform, but no one really believes that Brian was sanctioning violence against gay people; the points he made about God's Agape love and so forth prove otherwise. These people are just grabbing for anything they can to gain sympathy points for their cause. It's amazing how irrationally the critics of Brian's editorial have acted toward something just because it goes against what they believe, even though they're preaching against that that very thing. In general, this whole thing has been a big mess in my view.
Comment 1, by Ms. Curiosity:
I belive that you, Justin Hawks, wrote a very nice response. I don't agree with it but it was still well written. One thing I don't understand, you typed "those who believe everyone should be tolerant of everything must admit contradiction," but in the first paragraph you typed, "Bible is inerrant and infallible (in short, perfect and contradiction-free)." So I ask, are you one of the people that does not believe that everyone should be tolerant since you don't admit contradiction in the Bible? (I do believe this land was built on tolerance.) Everything in life is not perfect and, in my opinion, that includes the Bible. I believe the Bible has some good points in it about how to live life, but isn't the only thing in life that is so-called perfect God and Christ?
Justin's reply:
Thanks for the nice comment. I do believe 100% that the Bible is "perfect" because it's author is the "perfect God and Christ" (speaking through divinely inspired men who wrote the Bible's books). Of course there's no way I can adequately address here all the issues that may prevent you or anyone from believing the divinity of the Bible (for instance, do you think it has contradictions? How can it be perfect if it was written by mere men? How do you know Jesus really rose from the dead and it's not a lie, etc, etc). I may not know all the answers in my head, but I do have them readily available when people ask, PLEASE feel free to contact me personally if you want to discuss this further. As far as the "tolerance" thing, I don't pretend to be okay with another person's belief system if those beliefs lead a person to hell, to put it bluntly. Again, I love the individual (homosexual or not, Christian or not) but not necessarily his/her beliefs. I'm not meaning to sound harsh, but there is only ONE way to heaven, and all other "paths" (Buddhism, Islam, atheism, etc) are essentially the same in that they all lead away from the truth. Now I REALLY hesitate to say all this, b/c I'm afraid it may seem like I'm trying to sound "better" than other people, but I'm not meaning to at all. Again it's only by God's grace that I'm "saved" and have his Truth living in me, NOT because of who I am or anything I've done, b/c I sure as hell don't deserve it. This same grace is available to anyone who believes in Jesus as their Savior and repents of their sins, no matter who they are (Mister Rogers or Osama bin Laden). I'm not one ounce about hate at all.
Justin FTW. I don't agree with all the xian stuff, but I really like his article because he actually BELIEVES in his faith, and it shows. He understands it, and doesn't spit out retarded bullshit like his co-blogger Brian Erskine.
People at my school are seriously being complete dumbasses lately, on both sides of this. My view: Brian Erskine's article was pretty much useless. He didn't say what he was trying to say (Justin just did). However, the people protesting are nearly as bad. HELLO FREE SPEECH MUCH???? Get off his case, damn. The people who support Christ on Campus and bitch out the people who are against it are the SAME PEOPLE PROTESTING HIS ARTICLE. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL SERIOUSLY, DON'T BE A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE.