October Letters to the Editor

Two letters to the editor were published in part on page 5 of the October issue of The Mirror they are reprinted in full here.

Marriage Isn’t Simply Your Choice, but a Covenant with a Holy God

by Garrett Bodie

On the 29th of September and article was written within the Mirror that was, in a word, controversial. The subject matter was marriage – more specifically, that homosexual marriage should not only be tolerated, but accepted by Christians on the principles of Christ himself. In the article it was said that Jesus loved us, and he commanded us to love God first and love others as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:36). However, to use this scripture as justification for not only tolerating homosexuals, but homosexuality within marriage is, frankly put, inane.

In “I support same-sex marriage because I am a Christian”, the argument was made that homosexuals have a “basic right to equality” on the basis that “genuine mutual love [couldn’t be] wrong”, and that Christ teaches us to be pacifistic and tolerant. There are a multitude of monolithic errs within this way of thinking, and this first one is this: our understanding of scripture should be the foundation for forming our opinions, not vice versa. When we allow our opinions to skew our interpretation of God’s Word, what we are doing is manipulating something that is holy so that it fits our agenda. That is not how scripture was intended to be read or used, because in essence, doing so is placing God into our pocket and using Him as a “get out of jail free” card.

Now, back to the real issue at hand – homosexual marriage. An issue that was not discussed at all in the last article of the Mirror was the institution of marriage itself. The statement was made that “if a couple has been through hell together, saying that they can’t be married tells them that their life is worthless”. The main problem here is that scripture does not support this statement in any way. A person’s value does not come from the person they marry or the marriage itself, but instead comes from their inherent status as a creation made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26) that the Lord values enough to have sacrificed His one and only son for (Romans 5:6-8). If a homosexual couple has gone through hell, it might be because of the facet of sin we tend to forget – its consequences.

Marriage, in itself, was created by God. It is a covenant, not simply between two human beings but between a newly-unified couple and the Lord of all creation (Matthew 19:3-6, Ephesians 5:21-33, Luke 16:18). Entering into a covenant with God -- a spiritual promise that He created, -- while bathing oneself in purposeful, knowledgeable sin is blasphemy as far as I am concerned. When a person tells God “I am going to take a holy thing you have made and use it to solidify a sin in my life”, what they are doing is saying that their sin is more important to them than their relationship with God.

Read Genesis 19. Read 1 Timothy 1:9-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, or Romans 1:26-27. The Bible is very clear on its stance that homosexuality is a sin. On that same note, the Word is also explicit: marriage is a holy, sacred covenant between two people and God. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is an excellent motto – as the last issue of the Mirror illustrated – but only when used correctly. Scripture tells us that Jesus spent nearly all of his time on earth with sinners. He loved them, and we are to love them in the same way. However, loving a person and allowing them to defile a holy gift from God with intentional sin is wrong. We are to love others as ourselves – no matter who they are or where they stand in their spirituality. First, however, we are to love God; and at times that means putting our foot down when He is being insulted. Treating homosexuals or homosexuality as any worse than lying or alcoholism is ludicrously wrong, but treating marriage like a business transaction is evenly so. We are all sinners, even those saved by grace. No man is any better than the other. That does not justify the pacifistic allowance of sacrilege.

A rebuttal of “I support same-sex marriages because I am a Christian”

Dear Editor,

First and foremost, I wish to make it inescapably clear that this is NOT an opinion column, but merely an editorial review. This article does not show or reflect the author’s view on such matters; rather, it is a rebuttal of said article, based on philosophy and deductive reasoning through the lens of Scripture. Because the previous article failed to have a coherent stream of thought and begged many questions, I will enumerate my argument for ease and clarity. I believe there are five basic questions begged, and they are as follows:

1. What is “Christian spirituality?” I cannot but assert that the author is referring to the idea of orthodox Christianity or “the Christian faith/life.” Instead of leaving the question begged, I will proceed to flesh out what this means. James says, “[pure religion] is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:27) Peter and John echo this with their instruction “to be found without spot or blemish” and “[he] who has been born of God does not keep on sinning” (2 Pet. 3:14 and 1 John 5:18, respectively). Jesus himself claims that the greatest commandment is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22: 36-37). Jesus further explains that “those who love [him] will keep his commandments” (John 14:15). John expounds on this in 1 John 2:3-6.

Therefore, a fundamental understanding of “Christian spirituality” remains imperative to the argument of same-sex marriage and its legitimacy. However, as noted above, “Christian spirituality” or “the Christian faith/life,” needs to be understood within its own context and framework in order to speak meaningfully about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. One cannot bring matters of the culinary arts into the chemistry lab and expect that ‘cooking until well-done’ will always provide the safest end!

2. What are “basic rights of equality” and Who grants them? Claiming “basic rights” without a context or a sovereign that grants them in that context severely begs the question. I maintain that a foundation must be given for these “rights” or at least some entity that grants them. Marriage, understood in the context of “the Christian faith/life,” more exemplifies the status of privilege, rather than right.

3. What, exactly, is “Love & Marriage?” The Bible says “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8); so what? What does this mean? Well let us keep reading: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 Jn. 4:9). So then, God expresses His love via Jesus’ office as bridegroom for the church. The Bible (Eph. 5, Rev. 21) speaks of Christ being the bridegroom of the church, His bride. This relationship embodies true love—namely someone who is willing to give [His] life for [Her] (these particular pronouns are used simply to give a distinction between the Heavenly picture of the Christ marriage and the Earthly picture of man and woman in marriage). Another aspect of this heavenly relationship rests in Jesus’ sole concern for keeping His bride pure. Jesus, in His High Priestly Prayer (John 17), thanks God for giving Him His people and consecrates them as “not of the world” (v. 15-17). He uses this language to summon the image of Ch. 8 of John’s Gospel—Christ is the light of the world and whoever follows Him will not live in darkness (8:12). Therefore, it is evident that the Savior does not intend to let His bride remain who she is or accept who she is, but deeply wishes to sanctify her and make her holy (8:19). This sanctifying process, also an essential aspect of earthly, Christian marriage exemplifies why it is a privilege (granted for the benefit of the believer, not inherently owed to him or her).

4. What is Sin and Hell? A lot of people in our culture maintain that sin is something that we do. It does hold true that ‘we are sinners because we sin.’ However, the inversion of this statement is crucial to understanding the true nature of mankind and the tragic consequences that we face. I would beg you to consider: ‘We sin because we are sinners’ (Rom. 3:23). This, in itself, requires one to wrestle with the unequivocal nature of our depravity. It changes our view from: “If I just tried harder to not sin” to “There is absolutely no hope for me, except Jesus Christ and His salvation” (Rom. 3:24). This is a subtle, yet imperative, move that shifts our salvation focus from sinner to savior. We are then liberated to see that, “Yes, there is no hope for me, but luckily, it is not up to me.” Of course, the danger here is to consume too much metaphorical wine and fall off of the other side of the horse. We CANNOT forget that ‘Jesus does not save us and leave us,’ as the catchy church marquis always say. Continuing the quotations of Mr. Paul (that is the Apostle Paul, not Paul Patrick), the opening of Romans 6 proclaims: “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!” (Rom. 6:1-2; also see 6:3-8:39). And now those of you who are astute philosophers proclaim to me: “But Mr. Bunch, you have committed the grossest of hypocritical errors; YOU have begged the question of morality in dealing with homosexuality and same-sex marriages!!” So then, I will acquiesce to your request by proving that homosexuality is a sin and not merely a ritual abomination.

But first, I would like to rent asunder the shroud of ignorance on this matter of ‘hell.’ The author of the previous article mentioned “[the] couple has been through hell together.” By definition, ‘hell’ is not ‘hard times’ or ‘suffering’ or ‘persecution’ or ‘slander’ or ‘demeaning, cruel stereotyping’ or ‘ridicule.’ Rather, hell encompasses the relentless wrath of a Holy and Just God, who by His very nature must turn His back on the apostate, wicked and evil entity upon which this wrath is outpoured. Hell is the absence of God’s love and care and grace that does not simply make people happy, but rather is actually essential for the very sustaining of life—in any form, be it hostile or not—in every second for all of time. It is as if humans were to hit absolute zero, a REAL vacuum were no motion occurred, and the bane of our existence for all of eternity was purposelessness. So presuming the status of ‘hell’ on the temporal, minute sufferings of this life are not simply irresponsible, but actually undermining and underestimating of God’s sustaining Goodness. Furthermore, James would actually claim that suffering, the more apt description of the quoted ‘hell,’ refines our faith and draws us closer to God (James 1:2). The fire which refines faith must be hot enough to cause all impurities to rise out of our crown of life, rendering pure holiness before the Lord of glory (James 1:12).

5. The Apostle Paul and what he really says about homosexuality, sin and morality? First, I need to clear up some philosophical inconsistencies. The author of the article seems slightly inconsistent as to what category sexuality should fall under: the mere metaphysical or the ethical (thus the misunderstandings of equating same-sex marriage to mixed-race marriage or sexuality to gender and race—these are quite separate and irrelevant). Given Scripture as our lens, homosexuality and, by proxy, same-sex marriages remains strictly a moral matter (if not already evident, the basis for this article is Scripture because of the presupposition of “Christian spirituality” given by the previous author). That author was exceedingly correct in citing Leviticus, however flawed it may have been. Leviticus, the eighteenth chapter, explains a litany of sexually immoral acts, which is not limited to homosexual acts. Verse 20 also mentions adultery. It is evident to see then, that these regulations were not merely for “ritual requirements.” And what about the writings of the Apostle Paul? I believe it to be most evident in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11. In both instances, Paul is not speaking of a condemning law to people who do not have their acts together and need to shape up. Paul writes these letters to people who he has a deep and passionate concern for. The Corinthians were a church amidst a Greek and pagan culture full of sexually immoral practices (not ancient, Jewish rituals). His concern for them was a fatherly concern (1 Cor. 4:15). As their spiritual father [lowercase intended], he desperately wanted them to repent, and for them to be presented to their bridegroom, Jesus Christ, as a pure and holy virgin (2 Cor. 12:21 and 2 Cor. 11:2, respectively).

The infinitely bad news is that homosexuality is a sin and everything it entails (according to the Scripture cited previously). The infinitely [greater] good news is that Christ is a loving and atoning sacrifice for that sin and everything that it entails (1 Tim. 1:12-17; 1 Jn. 1:8-2:1; 1 Jn. 3:4-10 and Rom. 3:23-24). “If you love the sinner, why can’t they love each other?” is a popular phrase. I think a very appropriate response to those that would say this would be: “Would Jesus let adulterers continue in adultery just because they love each other?” And this author will pose only one opinion: Wouldn’t Jesus love them enough to rip them from their sin that so entangles and bind them to His loving, Heavenly Father that kills, atones, redeems, and glorifies them by His sweet and precious blood?

Sincerely,

Philip Bunch

discussion continues about football at Erskine

See this article in the Greenwood Index-Journal as posted on the ErskineCollegeSports.com website. Comments, fellow Erskinites?

AMS: It's Not What You Think It Is

AMS: It's not what you think it is
By Brittaney Ross
Staff Writer

Editor's Note: Due to errors in the editing process, the following article did not appear in the print version of this issue of The Mirror. It is reprinted below in full.

The students of Erskine college may not be a cornucopia of the world's nationalities, but the Association of Multicultural Students (AMS) aims to enlighten all Erskine students, regardless of racial/ethnic background, gender or nationality, of the significance and contributions that minorities and women worldwide have made and continue to make to society. AMS does this through service projects and student-initiated programs throughout the year.

As the school year draws to a close, a new cabinet of dedicated students was sworn in to continue the AMS mission into the 2008-2009 school year. Senior April Clayton has been a member of AMS since her freshman year and has dutifully served as the organization's president during the 2007-2008 school term. Reflecting on her early days as a member, she says she joined AMS because she wanted to be actively involved with a cultural awareness organization that "recognized and respected the presence of minorities on campus."

During her tenure as president, AMS has sponsored activities such as a candlelight vigil honoring Black History Month, a Hispanic Heritage Month fiesta, and a culinary tour of Asia and the Pacific Islands. She believes that both Erskine College and the students have benefited from the positivity and uplifting presence that AMS brings to campus--this shows that Erskine is taking steps to recognize and appreciate the contributions of minorities on campus and globally. All students benefit intellectually from learning about cultures that differ from their own. As president of AMS, she faced many challenges. One especially difficult challenge was a lull in membership that was partly due to the former title of the organization: Association of Minority Students. Understandably, some students felt unwelcome and were hesitant to join because of the seemingly exclusionistic title.

Upon hearing this news, Clayton immediately set forth plans to change the title and the constitution to better reflect one of the foremost goals of the organization--to include and value all students irrespective of ethnic background. Enrollment slightly improved thereafter, but even today she is aware that some students still feel as if they can not join because they may not be 'multicultural'. Overall she says she has "really enjoyed working with the other dedicated members of AMS" and is proud of the
accomplishments of this progressive organization, but she still wants to get the word out to any Erskine student who may still feel slighted that "AMS is not just a black club--we celebrate all of God's peoples."

Newly sworn in president Junior Jordan Lewis is enthusiastic about and willing to tackle the negative perceptions of AMS. Like Clayton, she will "reach out to those who feel as if they do not belong. All students will benefit from learning about different cultures" and develop a more diverse perspective about the world's peoples. Lewis forsees attendance and active participation of all Erskine students as one of the main obstacles to growth as she presides over AMS. With the continued dedication of new and existing members, Lewis is certain that she and the organization can and will overcome. "I would like for every Erskine student to attend at least one meeting. I'm certain that they will be changed for the better."

The new cabinet is as follows: Vice President Si'Ara Washington; Treasurer Becky Rose; Secretary Chanel Baldwin; Parliamentarian Ashley Rhett and Melanie Coleman, Shawn Glover and Kate McDonald will serve as Ambassadors.

AMS meetings are held every Monday night at 9:30 pm in the Hangar.

Comment from Greg Haselden on the status of the Hans Engler home

I spoke this afternoon with Erskine Vice-President for Finance and Operations Greg Haselden concerning rumors circulating that long-time Erskine Professor Dr. Hans Engler and his wife were going to be asked to leave their house (which they rent from Erskine) by the end of May. Mr. Haselden gave the following comment to The Mirror:

I don't know where [the rumor] came from.

The Englers have not been asked to leave - now, in May, or at any other time.

They have a rental agreement, and have not been asked to leave.

We have no intentions to do anything with the house, aside from doing renovations. Aramark did an assessment to determine what work needs to be done, but we haven't asked [the Englers] to leave.

'The Great Divide' of American Foreign Policy

Dr. Andrew Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Brown University. Bacevich is one of the most articulate anti-war conservatives working in the academy today (see his masterful book, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War). In a recent article written for the independent Roman Catholic journal Commonweal entitled The Great Divide: The Crisis of U.S. Military Policy, Bacevich argues that American foreign policy needs to reverse course by rejecting the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war and returning to the just war tradition; adopting a policy of containment vis a via Islamic jihadism; and re-establish a citizen-soldier tradition to counteract militarism. Not applicable to your life as an Erskine student? Think again - the massive federal debt our generation is already enslaved to will only become worse if our government continues its current military policies.

According to Bacevich, the "post-Vietnam" era of U.S. military policy has been defined by three main themes. First, we have the "Great Divorce" between civilians and the military inaugurated by Nixon's ending the draft in the wake of the turbulent failures of Vietnam. This lead, writes Bacevich, to "a new professional military with an ethos that emphasized the differences between soldiers and civilians. Out of differences came distance: after Vietnam, members of the officer corps saw themselves as standing apart from (or perhaps even above) the rest of society. More than a few members of the public endorsed that view." In other words, here we have the seeds of American militarism.

Second, Bacevich discusses what he calls the "Great Reconstitution." Begun by Reagan, the military received new funding, an upgrade in technology with the goal of total superiority, and renewed praise as a means to resolve conflicts.

Third, we have the age of "Great Expectations." This era, inaugurated by President George H.W. Bush, would culminate in our present troubles in Iraq:

During the 1990s, the first two narrative threads combined to produce a third. This was the theme of “Great Expectations,” which found members of the political elite looking for new ways to tap the potential of this technologically sophisticated, highly professional military. Armed force accrued positive connotations: hitherto employed to wreak mayhem, it now became an instrument for fixing things. One result was the discovery of new missions like peacemaking, peacekeeping, and “humanitarian intervention.” Another result was to remove any lingering reluctance about employing military force abroad.

During his single term as president, George H. W. Bush made substantial headway in dismantling the inhibitions implied by the Vietnam Syndrome. Bill Clinton completed the task: during his eight years in the Oval Office, armed intervention became so frequent that it almost ceased to be newsworthy. Yet George W. Bush did most to promote the theme of Great Expectations. After 9/11, the forty-third president committed the United States to a policy of preventive war, the so-called Bush Doctrine. As part of his “Freedom Agenda,” he also vowed to use American power to liberate the greater Middle East, end tyranny, and vanquish evil from the face of the earth.

Tacitly affirming the Great Divorce, Bush committed the nation to these breathtaking goals without calling on Americans themselves to play a role or make any sacrifices. Bush intended to remake the world without mobilizing the country. The people would remain spectators.

Responsibility for implementing the Freedom Agenda, therefore, fell almost entirely on the shoulders of the all-volunteer force. As commander-in-chief, Bush did not even press Congress to expand the size of the force. Apparently, he assumed that the Great Reconstitution had made the standing army unstoppable. Even as he embarked on an open-ended global war, the president did not question that assumption.

This proved to be a serious miscalculation, as events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown. The indisputable lesson of those two wars is this: The United States lacks sufficient military power to achieve the objectives outlined in Bush’s Freedom Agenda. Means and ends are wildly out of whack. We have too much war and too few warriors. No amount of technology can close that gap.

To put it another way: the Great Expectations of the 1990s are exhausting the military created by the Great Reconstitution of the 1980s. Meanwhile, abiding by the Great Divorce of the 1970s, the American people content themselves with cheering from the sidelines.

(Emphasis mine.)

These are serious problems. But understanding how we got to the point we are at is the first step in beginning to solve them. While Obama represents the largest potential for change, sadly the foreign policy consensus roughly represented by Clinton, McCain, and Obama does not seem willing to break with the aggressive, interventionist foreign policy represented by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. (Can you see Hillary or McCain adopting a policy of containment? I think not.) Write to your senators and representatives, send them articles by writers like Bacevich, and tell them you want a more just, humane, and constitutional foreign policy.

Interesting...

From CNN.com: Arctic adventures on Norwegian archipelago. The downside: lots and lots of polar bears:

One disconcerting thing about sightseeing on these frozen Arctic islands at the edge of the polar ice pack: the biggest tourist attractions might be returning your stare. And to them, you're a potential meal.

There are an estimated 4,000-5,000 polar bears on or around Svalbard, an Arctic archipelago as far north as you can fly on a commercial flight. At about 78 degrees north latitude, it is less than 620 miles from the North Pole.

Maggie Peeler resigns as women's basketball coach

From the Index-Journal:

“The time and energy that it takes to rebuild, I don’t have any more, with three children and the fact that the losses effect their lives and I bring it home,” Peeler said. “Hopefully with a new regime coming in they can turn it around.”

(Matt Anderson, Erskine women’s mentor resigns)