Re : Christian witness and a homosexual
basketball player
The problem isn't that Chris Broussard is a Christian
sportscaster
who cites the Bible. The problem is that to cite the Bible
as a
political reference, and in lieu of discussion of relevant
testimony
of psychology or social science, is heavy handed. And in
Broussard's
case there was also apologetics involved, and the
muddy-the-waters
effect when dragging in to the conversation such things as
pre-marital sex among heterosexuals.
In other words, like all too many Christians, Broussard is
uninformed
and has no base of real-world knowledge to use in
discussing
the issue of homosexuality. In the end he merely witnessed
for
his private sense of morality as if nothing else was
relevant
except religious faith.
Being a Christian means never having to say 'I studied' ?
Not that anyone expects a sportscaster to be an experienced
behavioral science researcher. However, PE degrees do
include
at least some behavioral science --it is part of sports
analysis--
and any college degree should provide sufficient
background
to do the basics and to make yourself informed about any
issue
you decide to take a public stand on. At that , a degree
is far less
important than motivation to want to become
informed,
and making an effort to do so.
Even as a Christian, however, Broussard dropped the ball.
Since when is heterosexual sin in the same category as
something the Bible labels an "abomination," a term used
only
for the most heinous of actions ? Not that I accept their
classification system but Catholics, as I see it, have the
idea basically right when they differentiate between mortal
sins and venial sins. Among mortal sins there needs to be
further differentiation since some sins are unspeakably
evil,
like murder and homosexuality.
"Contextualizing" homosexuality by lumping it along with
a man and woman shacking up without benefit of nuptials
is also contrary to cases of sex outside of marriage
commented
on in parts of the Bible, which are put in a very different
category
than sodomy. Contextulaizing is also politically Very
Stupid.
News flash : It isn't only fire
breathing Atheists who have
sex outside of marriage, this custom is also indulged in by
a goodly number of Christians and even the Apostle Paul
commented on it and gave (at least grudging) approval if,
anyway, it led to marriage.
Large majorities of Americans are approving of unmarried
heterosexual sex and to associate these people with
homosexuals
is self-defeating. It reminds me of a true-believer woman I
once
met who wanted to use the occasion of alarm --at the
time--
about AIDS to campaign against husbands and wives in normal
marriages having oral sex as part of their fun. You can
almost
hear a chorus of husbands say : You mean
that if I want to
oppose homosexuals then I must also tell my wife that
she cannot give me blow jobs any more ?
In other words, Broussard was not very smart.
Yes, the thrust of the American Spectator article is for
the good.
However, the writer also leaves out factors of considerable
importance. When fighting the good fight, dammit, get it
right.
Billy
====================================
American Spectator
By George Neumayr on 5.1.13 @ 6:11AM
But then is told to go back into the closet.
As homosexuals come out of the closet, Christians go into
it. “Authenticity” is highly prized in society today,
provided that what one feels falls safely within the
dictates of political correctness. Sports analyst Chris
Broussard stepped briefly outside of the Christian closet
on Monday and paid the price for it.
“Personally I don’t believe that you can live an openly
homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex
[lifestyle] between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living
that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by
their fruits, it says that’s a sin,” Broussard said on
ESPN. “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin,
whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery,
fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals,
whatever it may be. I think that’s walking in open
rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”
ESPN, not long thereafter, apologized for permitting
these remarks to disrupt Monday’s canonization: “We regret
that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became
a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed
to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”
Naturally, a Soviet-style clarification was in order from
the guilty party, and Broussard supplied it via Twitter by
Monday night: “Today on [ESPN], as part of a larger,
wide-ranging discussion on today’s news, I offered my
personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of
view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that
some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and
respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs
have not and will not impact my ability to report on the
NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his
announcement today and I have no objection to him or
anyone else playing in the NBA.”
This may not be sufficient. The columnist H.L. Mencken
defined American puritanism as the “haunting fear that
someone, somewhere is having a good time.” Political
correctness, as the new puritanism, harbors the haunting
fear that someone, somewhere is holding a Christian
thought. Broussard, if he wishes to continue his career in
sports journalism, will have to undergo
PC-style reparative therapy and adopt a more appropriate
level of enthusiasm when future canonizations of
homosexual athletes occur.
Unlike his colleagues, he failed to treat the news like a
moon landing. It was so important that it warranted a
presidential phone call. And he failed to compare Collins
to Jackie Robinson. This was “enormous” news, decreed the
media.
Except it wasn’t. One detected considerable straining in
the accounts as the reporters piled up the qualifiers:
Collins is not the first homosexual athlete but the “first
active male athlete in a major U.S. professional sports
league to come out of the closet,” as the Washington
Post put it. Complicating that heavily qualified
distinction is that he is not active. He is a free agent
who, prior to this announcement, may not have played
again. “He’s towards the end of his career and not that
good anymore,” said Broussard.
Perhaps Broussard will have to apologize for that
judgment too. The media prides itself on the total lack of
skepticism when stories like this one break, giving them a
Pravda-style rollout. All the propaganda pieces
fell into place perfectly, all duly reported by the media:
the presidential phone call, a supportive pat on the back
from the First Lady, the praise of Kobe Bryant, Bill
Clinton, and America’s other moral giants, an adulatory Good
Morning America interview.
Broussard spoiled the festivities by bringing up God,
whose celebrity continues to dim. The ruminations of
rappers and reality stars now count for more than passages
from the Bible.
Last week the media informed those perplexed by the FBI’s
lax oversight of the Boston bombers that good Americans
shouldn’t care what people think, that the FBI was right
not to give heightened scrutiny to people who dabble in
jihadist thought. But that same media takes a great deal
of interest in the thinking of Christians and monitors
them very carefully. Christians, unless they change their
thoughts, don’t belong in public life, according to
America’s ruling class. They are “un-American,” as actor
Tom Hanks once put it in an unguarded moment.
Bill O’Reilly is also concerned that “thumping the Bible”
somehow lowers our public discourse. Who needs the word of
God when we have the tweets of Michelle Obama? From now
on, Christian Broussard will be expected to leave his
Bible in the closet.
-- 