Opinion | Letter to the Editor
To the Editor: Are all sins created equal?
April 27, 2009 - 11:00pmTo the Editor:
Re: “Unfolding Nuance Concerning Jesus and Homosexuality,” Opinion, April 27.
Never did I think that the first piece I would write to The Sun would be a rebuttal on a column involving a religious issue because as the author of this column so readily points out, religion is a terribly divisive issue. So divisive that many people cringe at the idea of discussing it in public. So divisive that you would definitely stay away from it as dinner chat on a first date. Now, here on campus we are dealing with just how divisive it can be surrounding an issue like gay rights.
While I am not an atheist, I don’t normally jive too well with organized religion. We have issues and I got over this a long time ago. Somewhere between my Confirmation, 9th grade biology, history class and my first girlfriend, I realized that I just wasn’t buying what the Catholic Church was selling. I believe religion to be a more intensely personal relationship that involves you and what you believe to be a higher power. If you want to share this personal experience with others in worship, that is just fine. I simply choose not to. What I am not OK with, however, is statements such as this one: “Christianity actually destroys any ground for superiority because everyone is in the same boat. Consequently, no person is seen as more valuable than any other person, which extends to the realm of organizations, groups and politics. Therefore, stepping down from a leadership position is not considered a demotion since positions are not the source of a person’s value.”
Now re-read that last bit again. Are you really OK with that rationale?
If you are a practicing Christian is that how you view your religion? While I am sure the author did not intend for it to do so, taking a second to think about this quote leaves the door open for some very wacky interpretations of Christianity. This statement offers nothing more than a thinly veiled justification for discrimination. The author asks the fundamental questions of (1) “Is Christianity mutually exclusive?” and (2) “Is Christianity hateful?” Simply put: (1) It shouldn’t be and (2) no, but its statements like this that have the potential to greatly confuse that matter. It’s that simple, and look, no references to Christian theological philosophy. So if we are all equal and silly semantics like “leadership positions” don’t mean anything, why not just make all the students who look, act or think differently sit on the back of the bus? How could we possibly consider that forcing someone to occupy a certain place in something as inconsequential as a bus could possibly matter when our standing before God is all equal anyway. I’m sure they won’t mind. After all, it’s not a demotion since where you stand on a bus is not the source of a person’s value. Why not apply the same logic to lunch counters, water fountains or leadership positions in Christian societies? They all don’t matter, so it’s OK!
Let me make this perfectly clear, despite my personal feelings concerning the church, I don’t have qualms with the Christian faith. Jesus Christ was a wonderful man who did nothing but preach love, understanding and tolerance. I also don’t accuse the author of explicitly promoting discrimination through his faith. It’s just that his words are not too far, in my opinion, from some potentially very dangerous thinking. Using Christianity in this way to justify such an appalling act as dismissing Mr. Donohoe from his leadership position because of his sexuality.
While I do hope that the University does the right thing my ensuring this type of incident will never happen again, I have some questions for the author. Do you really think the man who told us to “love they neighbor as yourself” would condone this behavior? Would the prophet who taught forgiveness and was a true leader of men even as he died on the cross would support the decision to ostracize a Christian who goes beyond basic worship to actually take up a leadership role among his fellow Christians? I fail to see how this is “in accordance with Biblical teaching.”
The author admits himself that he struggles with looking for the satisfaction of the approval of others over Jesus. Is homosexuality somehow a greater sin than his? Why is that? He leads a Christian organization on campus. Perhaps with this admission, he should be asked to step down from his position so that a more righteous individual can take up the cause.
Nicholas DeVito ’10
Your last lines illustrate
Your last lines illustrate your lack of understanding of this issue. As you say, the author of "Unfolding Nuance Concerning Jesus and Homosexuality" admits to struggling with looking for the approval of others, rather than the approval of Jesus. It is precisely this struggle which makes him a good candidate for a leadership position in an organization with certain fundamental values; when the author notices in himself a tendency towards a quality which his organization defines, for better or worse, as sinful, he tries to counteract it.
Likewise, Mr. Donohoe long struggled with his own sexuality, which was regarded as sinful by an interpretation of the Bible to which, and I cannot stress this point strongly enough, he himself ascribed. His organization accepted him as a leader with full knowledge of his sexuality, provided he work to counteract it as per the value system of the organization. It was only when Mr. Donohoe decided that his sexuality was not a sin, and thus broke fundamentally with his group's interpretation of the Bible, that he was removed from his position. This is not to say that the value system which demonizes homosexuality is "right." It is only to say that Chris himself ascribed to it by taking a leadership position, and his intellectual break from the group constitutes ample ground for his removal.
I agree with you on one thing- contrary to what the author of "Unfolding Nuance Concerning Jesus and Homosexuality" may have us believe, the removal of Mr. Donohoe does indeed constitute a demotion. Christianity, like other religions, may be concerned with the spiritual more than with the physical, and thus may believe that, regardless of rank, human beings are equal in supernatural eyes. But even these views must be implemented through earthly organizations, and one can't exactly turn a blind eye to the removal from a leadership position.
But I'm uncomfortable with the analogy you draw from this common ground. You liken Christianity's removal of its organizations' leaders, which it regards as spiritually meaningless, to segregation of "students who look, act, or think differently." But is that not exactly what you're doing by arguing against the value system of Mr. Donohoe's organization, into which he entered with full knowledge of the implications? Are you not villifying a group that acts and thinks differently than you?
It is sad that there are groups which discriminate based on sexual orientation. They should certainly not receive funding from a university which makes every effort to show itself as a discrimination-free zone. But Mr. Donohoe was not forced to join the group. By taking a leadership position, he affirmed his agreement with its guiding principles. When his own principles drifted from those of the group, it had every right to remove him. But when we start challenging the right of independently-funded organizations (as, in the future, this group will be) to determine their own guiding principles, we're all in trouble.
true love
"Jesus Christ was a wonderful man who did nothing but preach love, understanding and tolerance."
This simply is not true. Any actual reading of the Bible (without just skipping things that one doesn't like/agree with or are difficult to understand) will bring you to an understanding that Jesus spoke about much, much more. He claimed not to be a "wonderful man", but God incarnate. He preached love. But he did not preach tolerance or understanding, at least not when it comes to sin. He instead preached holiness and righteousness and perfection (which humans are incapable of achieving, hard though we may try); He spoke about harsh judgment of sinners and those who would support sin or deny truth.
Jesus embodies love, yes. And He loves you, yes. But love is .not. saying to a blind man who is about to walk off a cliff or into a fire that you accept him for the way he is and that what he "sees"/"knows"/"believes" is for him, and that's OK. Love is rescuing him from the impending danger. True loves seeks the best for others, often at the expense or sacrifice of oneself. If the best, most satisfying thing, is indeed God and a pursuit of holiness, as Jesus spoke of, then it would be unloving to allow/let another person to live a life in sin. Letting us live in sin, apart from God, would not be real/true love. Instead, Jesus embodies love in His work on the cross; He was not just some prophet- His death was an act of love, to take away the sins of the world, so that those who believe in Him and in His work might be enabled to inherit and have the best, to have a deep relationship with God, and to have eternal life (John 3:16; read also John 3:15). Christians, if following the calling of Christ, are to love with Truth; denying what we see as truth of Jesus Christ, which is the only Way to real, fulfilling, satisfying Life, would be the ultimate unloving thing.
I hope this clarifies things a little, and that it did not come off as overly critical or demeaning. Thanks for reading. Cheers!