Giving a Defense

By GotDesign
Way back in May, I posted the story of Jewel Graham who was persecuted because of her beliefs. Specifically, she wrote a story about the biases in favor of homosexuality and the political agenda of the "gay movement" to portray homosexuality as normal and mainstream.

I recently (and surprisingly) received an anonymous comment on the original posting -- Calling It As She Sees It -- criticizing Ms. Graham and my support for her. Here is the text of the post:
Its great that you support your friend, but as a student at Butler at that time, you must understand the other side of the situation. First off, she was not as harrassed as she said. And wasn't her article essentially harrassing homosexuals and those who support them? Second of all, she wrote the article in response to something she saw on of her favorite shows. Not only did she continue to watch the show (thus supporting it?), but I don't believe she ever wrote an article condeming the heterosexual interactions that were clearly in violation of her beloved beliefs. Her main arguement was that homosexuality was in violation of the Bible, but she never had a problem watching shows/movies with premarital/extramarital sex. Lastly, as an RA, one of her responsibilies was to create a safe environment for all residents. Telling how much she hated gays definitely alienated residents. In most places she would have been fired for harassment.

Before you blindly agree and support things people tell you, please not only think about the other side of the argument, but also that Jesus calls us to LOVE... not judge. LOVE first and formost. The rest is up to HIM. Telling people how horrible they are will not make the situation better. Love and understanding will. Open your mind, and especially your heart. Having an open mind does not mean you can't be a Christian, but it will give you better perspective. Remember to LOVE!

Actually, Jewel WAS harassed. In fact, her position on the student newspaper was threatened unless she retracted her story and apologized. Her position as a Resident Assistant (R.A.) in the residence halls was also threatened unless a retraction was made. She received threatening e-mail and phone calls on a regular basis at the time of the events mentioned. If it was not for the intervention of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) -- an organization that provides legal support for persons who are threatened legally for their Christian beliefs -- she would not only have lost her positions on the student newspaper and as an R.A., but she also would have been suspended, and possibly expelled, from Butler. So, there is no doubt that she was harassed.

As for the article that triggered all of this, it was about the biases of the mainstream media (MSM) and the television entertainment industry in favor of normalizing homosexual behavior. As for the presence of heterosexual, extramarital sexuality shown on such programs, Jewel was not unaware. But such depictions of adultery and frivolous sexuality have long been a part of American television entertainment. There was little Jewel could do about such firmly entrenched immorality. However, the support being shown to the homosexual community on television is a more recent phenomenon. Jewel's comments could be more effective in stemming the tide of moral decay in the area of homosexual advancement than in standing against heterosexual immorality. Choose your battles wisely.

As an R.A., Ms. Graham was highly regarded. She had been consistently promoted and acknowledged as an example for others. Her comments about the MSM's support for homosexuality by no means created a threatening environment. Let's remember that Ms. Graham's newspaper article was not about homosexuality, but about the MSM and entertainment industries' support for homosexuality. This had nothing to do with her position as an R.A. or her responsibilities towards the students she advised.

I never "blindly agree and support things people tell [me]." I am not a parrot of opinions that I hear someplace. I actually met Jewel Graham and she told me her story. I research her story afterwards and read her original article and the criticisms (and the hatred) that followed. There are many things of which I can be accused. But willing blindness is not one of them. Those who know me realize that I am by nature an inquisitive person. When I read a book, I research ideas and topics presented in the book. When I hear someone speak, I follow up on the issues and problems brought forward. When I became serious about my Christian beliefs (back during my undergraduate education), I studied the Roman Empire and the environment in which Christianity began and flourished. I collected ancient Roman coins and artifacts. Blind is an adjective that just doesn't apply.

As for love, I think anonymous has missed the mark again. Just because I love someone doesn't mean I should overlook their faults. If I am to love everyone, just as Jesus did, I cannot do so blindly but as honestly as Jesus did. Every person Jesus confronted, Jesus also loved. He loved them in spite of their faults and sins. But Jesus did not overlook their sins because of his love. Because of Jesus' love for people, he required that they change their ways. Jesus once met a woman at a well and asked her to draw some water for him. When she, a Samaritan woman, balked about being asked for water by such a well-regarded Jewish rabbi, Jesus told her about her whole life of sin. He pointed out to her that she had four failed marriages and was living with a man who was not her husband. When she acknowledged her sinful ways, Jesus didn't just say, "That's great! I love you. Have a nice day." No, he asked her to change her ways. "Go and sin no more," is what Jesus told her. Every instance where Jesus confronted someone about their sins, he required that they repent and change their lives. If Jesus didn't change lives, then he is not worth our worship or our consideration.

Anonymous, I greatly appreciate your visiting GotDesign and taking the time to read my postings and leave comments. But don't malign someone because their opinions differ from your own. There used to be a time when Democrats and Liberals were staunch advocates of tolerance. But I haven't found any tolerance on the Left lately. Let's remember that the definition of tolerance is "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own."

Well, Anonymous has responded to my comments above in almost the way I had expected. It seems that instead of seeing that Jewel Graham and I have deeply held beliefs about the issues in question, he/she wants to come back claim we're intolerant. Anonymous says, "Christians can be democrats." Yes, they can. So what? Do Jewel and I have homosexual friends? I can't speak for Jewel but I do have some homosexual friends. Once again, so what? Anonymous seems to think that just because Jewel writes an article about the biases of the entertainment media towards homosexuality, that she must hate them deeply and wish them all some degree of harm. Because I write a blog posting support Jewel, I must hate gays too. While I have only had brief contact with Jewel Graham, I don't think Jewel could hate anyone. As for myself, I don't hate anyone. Why should I? Anonymous continues by saying that Jesus could confront sinners because he did so in love. The implication is that we cannot because we don't do so in love. Is it love to allow someone to do something self-destructive without saying anything? If they continue in this self-destruction after having been confronted, that's their problem. While we Christians are not perfect like Jesus, we're trying. That, after all, is our goal -- to be more like Jesus.

Thank you, Anonymous, for continuing to visit GotDesign. I hope that some day you'll see that blogging about issues we don't agree with does not mean we hate. It means we care enough to speak up. Who will listen? That's up to you.

Well, Anonymous isn't giving up. He/she still thinks Jewel graham's article -- the one that cause such a stir -- was designed to bash gays. Anonymous still thinks anyone who agree with the Biblical injunction against homosexuality automatically hates gays. One last time -- Jewel's article was not about gays. It was about the entertainment industry's attempts to push the gay political and social agendas. To make its seem that homosexuality is good, acceptable, and normal. Obviously, I'm not reaching Anonymous. Too bad.

0 comments so far.

Something to say?