Between the Boy and the Bridge

[IBCoupe]

The following was written by Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in the wake of Tyler Clementi's suicide:



I am haunted by the one question that seems so obvious and clear in the account of Tyler Clementi's tragic death. In those days of crushing anguish, humiliation, and confusion, was there no one who could have stood between that boy and that bridge?

By all accounts Tyler Clementi was an 18-year-old young man who was excited to be a freshman in college, gifted as a violinist, and looking forward to the future. All that changed last week when he walked out onto the massive George Washington Bridge that connects New York with New Jersey and jumped 200 feet to his death.

The last few days of Tyler Clementi's life were a cauldron of confusions. Over the course of three days, he learned that his roommate at Rutgers University, also age 18, had surreptitiously turned a webcam toward his bed, filming him in a romantic encounter with another male student. The roommate employed social media to inform friends of the event, turning what Tyler Clementi assumed was a private moment into a devastating public disclosure.

It is now clear that Tyler was crushed, confused, and angry. He posted thoughts about how he might respond on the Web and finally wrote this on his Facebook page: "Jumping off gw bridge sorry."

In September, no less than three additional teenagers committed suicide, and these are believed also to be connected to disclosures or struggles with homosexuality. As Geoff Mulvihill and Samantha Henry of the Associated Press report:

Clementi's death was part of a string of suicides last month involving youngsters who were believed to have been victims of anti-gay bullying. Fifteen-year-old Billy Lucas hanged himself in a barn in Greensburg, Ind. Asher Brown, 13, shot himself in the head in Houston. And 13-year-old Seth Walsh of Tehachapi, Calif. hanged himself from a tree in his back yard.

That is four teenagers in just one month. And look at those ages. Two were only 13, one was 15, and Tyler Clementi was 18. That is four dead boys in the space of one horrible month, and all were struggling with sexual identity.

The gay rights movement was fast to claim that Tyler Clementi was a victim of gay bullying. While the motive of his roommate and accomplices is not known, the undeniable result was that Tyler was exposed before the world through the power of social media — in this case a very dangerous power indeed.

He was humiliated, angry, and horribly confused. His confusion is evident in his Internet musings, in which he swings in mood from outright indignation to the reflection that, other than this incident, his roommate was basically decent.

Somewhere in the midst of his heartbreak and confusion, Tyler decided to end his life. He posted his announcement on his Facebook page and headed for the George Washington Bridge. There, he ended his short life with a long plunge into the Hudson River.

Reading the news accounts of Tyler's final days and final act is truly horrifying. He was betrayed by classmates and exposed to the world. At the age of 18, it was simply too much for him to bear. A young man who probably never considered suicide in the past, and who might never have considered it again in the future, felt himself pushed on that day beyond his emotional limits, so he pushed himself off the bridge.

Tyler joined Billy, Seth, and Asher as tragic evidence of the dangerous intersection of sexual confusion, hateful classmates, and the wide-open world of social media. These boys simply ran out of the emotional ability to face life, crushed by the burden of secrets and the bullying of their peers.

The homosexual community will argue that these boys were oppressed by the fact that so many believe that homosexuality is sinful. They respond with calls for the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality. Their logic is easy to understand. If the stigma attached to homosexuality were to disappear, persons who are convinced that they are homosexual in sexual orientation, along with those who are confused, would be free from bullying, the threat of exposure, and injury to their parents and loved ones.

Of course, Christians committed to biblical truth will recognize this as a demand to lie to sinners about their sin. The church cannot change its understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual acts unless it willfully disobeys the Scripture and rejects the authority of the Bible to reveal the truth about sin and sinfulness.

In other words, the believing church cannot surrender to the demand that we disobey and reject biblical truth. That much is clear. We cannot lie to persons about the sinfulness of their sin, nor comfort them with falsehood about their moral accountability before God. The rush of the liberal churches and denominations to normalize homosexuality is now a hallmark of their disobedience to the Bible.

But this is not the end of the matter, and we know it. When gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are wrong. Our concern about the sinfulness of homosexuality is not rooted in fear, but in faithfulness to the Bible — and faithfulness means telling the truth.

Yet, when gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are also right. Much of our response to homosexuality is rooted in ignorance and fear. We speak of homosexuals as a particular class of especially depraved sinners and we lie about how homosexuals experience their own struggle. Far too many evangelical pastors talk about sexual orientation with a crude dismissal or with glib assurances that gay persons simply choose to be gay. While most evangelicals know that the Bible condemns homosexuality, far too many find comfort in their own moralism, consigning homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own.

What if Tyler Clementi had been in your church? Would he have heard biblical truth presented in a context of humble truth-telling and gospel urgency, or would he have heard irresponsible slander, sarcastic jabs, and moralistic self-congratulation? What about Asher and Billy and Seth?

The teenage years are hard enough to navigate. Most boys do not struggle with homosexuality, but there is not a teenage boy alive who does not struggle with sexual confusion. There is no deacon, preacher, or pew-sitter who went through male adolescence unscathed and without sin. There is not a human being who reaches school age who would not be humiliated by a well-placed webcam. And yet these boys — along with girls facing similar struggles — imagine themselves to be alone in their confusion and helpless in their anguish.

Was there no one to step between Tyler Clementi and that bridge? Was there no friend, classmate, or trusted adult who had the courage and compassion to reach into his life and offer hope? Was there no one who could tell him that the anguish of his moment would not last for his lifetime? Was there no one to put into perspective the fact that people who did not love him had taken advantage of him, but that the many who did love him would love him no less?

We can only look at this news account and grieve. As Christians, we just have to wonder. Was there no believer to befriend Tyler and, without loving his homosexuality, love him? The homosexual community insists that to love someone is to love their sexual orientation. We know this to be a lie. But no one who loves me should love nor rationalize my sin. The church must be the people who speak honestly about sin because we have first learned by God's grace to speak honestly of our own.

Something has gone horribly wrong when four young boys take their lives in the space of one month, and a society just goes on with its business. There are grieving parents and loved ones who will never get over that month, and there were four young men who did not survive it.

There are Tylers and Ashers and Billys and Seths all around us. They are in our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our churches … and in our homes. They, like us, desperately need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to know the grace of God toward sinners. They, like us, need to know the mercy of God extended to sinners through Christ Jesus. They, like us, need to repent of their sins and learn by grace how to grow into faithfulness. They, like us, need to know that they are loved if they are going to trust Christians to tell them about Jesus.

Even long before they may hear or respond to the gospel, they need to know that they are loved and cherished for who they are. They need to know that we stand between them and those who would harm them. They need to know that we know how to love sinners because we have been loved despite our own sin.

I am haunted by the one question that seems so obvious and clear in the account of Tyler Clementi's tragic death. In those days of crushing anguish, humiliation, and confusion, was there no one who could have stood between that boy and that bridge?

[IBCoupe]

As much as I disagree with his urge for proselytizing, I respect his call for gentleness in doing it.

[AppleBonker]

As much as I disagree with his urge for proselytizing, I respect his call for gentleness in doing it.

I still have a hard time with it. I can appreciate that he isn't condemning homosexuality completely, but the idea that one religion (or culture, for that matter) provides the sole moral "truth" for the entire universe I find completely unreasonable and laughable. What makes his religion any more or less right than any other religion? If he's going to argue that Christianity tells people how to live moral lives, can he not accept that other cultures or religions may feel theirs do as well? And how opposed would he be if someone tried to force him to live a morally-correct life by Islamic standards (especially as practiced in the middle east) or by the standards of some African cultures? But yet it is ok for him to push his crap on other people? How can he be so certain that his moral "truth" is accurate? I suppose I should start instigating blood feuds, honor killings and female genital mutilation. After all, my religion tells me that is how I become "moral".

And so people don't feel like I'm proselytizing either: I don't really care what you think is moral or not. I am also not trying to push my moral standards on anyone else. I do, however, care about the happiness and well-being of ALL humanity. And I therefore try to base my decisions on what would make everyone happy, not just what would be pleasing to one specific group.

[IBCoupe]

That's what I meant by "I disagree with his urge to proselytize," but you said it better. See, Jews are naturally resistant to conversion. If you want proof of evolution, look no further: y'all already killed or converted the Jews who were amenable to it. Now all that's left are the wiley ones, and they're sure to pass that along to their offspring.

Now we are a heartier breed.

[AppleBonker]

Lol. Survival of the fittest, indeed.

It's really not even the conversion aspect I take issue with. I honestly couldn't care much less. My stronger focus is on separating religion from morality. I don't believe the two are synonymous at all. In fact, I'd argue that the two aren't even dependent. I think morality should be based on achieving the maximum possible happiness of all beings. Assuming you could quantify happiness, the sum of that value across all humans should always be going up. That would be ideal, IMHO. In this specific case, I don't see any large decrease in anyone's individual happiness if this man is gay. I do, however, see a decrease in his happiness if we condemn him for it. If everyone could take steps to improve the overall happiness of our race, I think this world would be much better off.

[AZhitman]

It's a great article.

The only "forcing of views" I see is the gay community demanding that the faith community ACCEPT their choices. One cannot force another to give assent to certain behavior. That's not their business, nor is it their right. Nor is it the church's role to "condemn" him. One can bring someone into the fold, love them as a brother or sister, and not judge or demean their choices.

We had guys in my men's group who were making bad decisions and engaging in behavior that ran counter to scripture. Didn't mean we shunned them. We walked WITH them, and loved them through their difficulties. And, being a not-very-religious person, I simply tried to be their friend and let myself be an example through my actions.

I see this pastor's article as being spot-on. Did the church fail Tyler? Did the people who loved him (while not condoning his homosexuality) not see the warning signs? As people of faith, this is what we should strive for... acceptance of all people, regardless of their actions and choices. It's not for us to judge, but to do what it takes to come alongside people of all walks and let them observe our testimony (through OUR actions - which includes looking out for people whose views we might disagree with).

Good stuff, Isaac. Thx for teh share.

[IBCoupe]

Adam, that's a great plan for you, but I wonder how well it translates. I'm convinced that evangelicals believe I'd be happier if I accepted Jesus. They might agree with your goal, and disagree on the means.

Greg, I think "acceptance" can be adequately represented by "leaving them alone." in that regard, I'm not sure your criticism works as well in both directions.

[AppleBonker]

Adam, that's a great plan for you, but I wonder how well it translates. I'm convinced that evangelicals believe I'd be happier if I accepted Jesus. They might agree with your goal, and disagree on the means.

I understand this. But that's why I wish people would look at the big picture. They might be slightly happier if you accept Jesus. But how much LESS happy would you be? Again, I'm focusing on the net happiness of the entire population. If you would be happier, then I would argue this is a worthwhile pursuit. However, I cannot agree with a slight increase in one person's happiness at the cost of a large decrease in another's.

And yes, I fully understand the difficulty in quantifying any of this.

[IBCoupe]

What I meant was maybe they believe I'll be happier. They probably reallythink that everybody would be happier with Jesus.

[AppleBonker]

Which gets back to my comment on how it's nearly impossible to quantify happiness. John Wayne Gacy may have truly believed that the teenage boys he molested and killed were happier once he was finished with them. This doesn't make it so. In the case of Gacy, it's pretty easy for me to say the boys were less happy. In your case, it would not be that definitive whether you would be happier.

[IBCoupe]

True.

[mattblancarte]

As much as I disagree with his urge for proselytizing, I respect his call for gentleness in doing it.

I almost agree with you here. Very, very close.

Right up until the 14th paragraph, I thought this guy may be a progressive Christian capable of suggesting real change.

This is, in fact, an article that whimpers as it slowly transforms and panders to fundamentalist homophobic Christians. The question is whether or not we follow the absurd teachings of the Old Testament, not to what degree we follow them.

Do we stone to death those who take the lords name in vain? No, you say? Well, it's right there next to the part that says being gay is abhorrent. How about women's suffrage? Shall we roll that back because of the Old Testament? I think not.

Until pastors like this can stomach the idea that the Bible was WRONG on the gay issue, he'll be steering his flock in the same direction they are headed right now... Right towards homophobia and bigotry towards gay men and women.

That said, he seems like a nice guy. One grasping for straws to seem compassionate... but nice.

[Cold_Zero]

As much as I disagree with his urge for proselytizing, I respect his call for gentleness in doing it.

I could tell (even though you gave it away with the SBTS tag) this was written by an Arminian (Baptists.) His ‘analysis’ of the church is reflective of his theology and is highly problematic. Just as their theology. Furthermore, what he failed to drive home is that their theology (which is also shared with most of modern Evangelicalism) is obsessed with sex. While I could probably write a nice long summation of the problems with his paper, I will refrain as to not throw this post into a religious debate. I will say that we on the other side of the fence (so to speak) have a much different view/emphasis in regards to sin.

I do give him credit for trying to approach the matter while I question/suspect it may be his church organization is pretty keen on trying to ‘remain relevant in society.’ I also give him credit for pointing out the special categorization of sins in his faith community. I would maintain he didn’t go far enough in unpacking this concept, but that may have not been what he was trying to accomplish.

[IBCoupe]

There's a West Wing for everything!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs[/youtube]

[Cold_Zero]

What I meant was maybe they believe I'll be happier. They probably reallythink that everybody would be happier with Jesus.

Seem my post above. But Jessus in the gospels never promised a happier life here on earth. He warned his believers/followers that they would be persecuted and mocked because of him. The concept that you pointed out is not so much ‘evangelical’ as much as a manifestation of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement. Two totally different groups.

[stebo0728]

Heres the way I look at the Old Testament, especially Leviticus. It was a set of rules given by God to his chosen people, specifically to them, and not necessarily applicable to all. Secondly, no one can specify the reasoning behind the rules. My feeling is that there were good reasons for the rules at the time, not necessarily because the action itself was bad, in some cases yes, but in others, it was just in the better interest of the people to follow the rules. Homosexuality for one, God had just delivered the people from the clutches of Egypt, spun them through the wilderness for 40 years, and was now setting them up. Firstly their numbers were too low, and bromances weren't the way to get them up. Now, does that mean the action itself was bad, or that God just didnt want them doing it? Well devoutees would say if God said no, that makes it bad, but I dont know if I share that reasoning.

Now, just to be clear, the Old Testament is not the only time its spoken of, there is also debated prohibition of it in the New Testament, which to a christian is to supercede levitican teachings. So I dont know, and I'm not trying to heat up the religious aspect of this, or say one way or the other about the validity of the issue, but to circle back to the OP, the way I try to function is, I may believe one way about something, and if someone feels the need to get my blessing on it, then I'll give them my opinion, but otherwise, its really none of my business, and frankly should be none of Uncle Sam's business either. If as christians we are supposed to love, then the treatment of gays by christians lately has not appeared very loving. The guy writing the piece may not have been spot on, but he's on the right track anyway.

[mattblancarte]

There you go. I haven't watched that show, but I have seen that clip a few times. Very good stuff, and a perfect expansion for my argument.

Thanks for the link.

[mattblancarte]

Show me the part where Jesus says being gay is bad. Jesus made it very clear that men are not to judge other men. That trumps all.

[Cold_Zero]

This is, in fact, an article that whimpers as it slowly transforms and panders to fundamentalist homophobic Christians. The question is whether or not we follow the absurd teachings of the Old Testament, not to what degree we follow them.

Do we stone to death those who take the lords name in vain? No, you say? Well, it's right there next to the part that says being gay is abhorrent. How about women's suffrage? Shall we roll that back because of the Old Testament? I think not.

Until pastors like this can stomach the idea that the Bible was WRONG on the gay issue, he'll be steering his flock in the same direction they are headed right now... Right towards homophobia and bigotry towards gay men and women.

That said, he seems like a nice guy. One grasping for straws to seem compassionate... but nice.

Please show me in the Old Testament or even the New Testament (since you have dragged Christianity into this discussion) where it says that women cannot vote in elections. You cant, because it doesnt say that. So then, please STOP falsely misrepresenting Scriptures. Your line of thinking stinks of painting bible believing Christians as Homophobes and Misogynistic as to simply dismiss from the social conversation. Which is an intolerant view.

The Classical Orthodox Christian view as to why Christians do not follow the Mosaic Laws in the Judicial sense (aka stoning people for offenses) is because Jesus fulfilled the law for us (through his active Obedience) and by his death on the cross has He has Justified the WHOLE world (what we call objective Justification). If you actually read the Bible in the Historical Grammatical method, you would have probably picked upon this concept.

[IBCoupe]

There you go. I haven't watched that show, but I have seen that clip a few times. Very good stuff, and a perfect expansion for my argument.

Thanks for the link.

You can download the whole series from Amazon. I dont know if you can buy themas a bundle, but it's $2 per episode or $15 per season. It's the show that made me politically-interested.

[mattblancarte]

Please show me in the Old Testament or even the New Testament (since you have dragged Christianity into this discussion) where it says that women cannot vote in elections. You cant, because it doesnt say that. So then, please STOP falsely misrepresenting Scriptures. Your line of thinking stinks of painting bible believing Christians as Homophobes and Misogynistic as to simply dismiss from the social conversation. Which is an intolerant view.

The Classical Orthodox Christian view as to why Christians do not follow the Mosaic Laws in the Judicial sense (aka stoning people for offenses) is because Jesus fulfilled the law for us (through his active Obedience) and by his death on the cross has He has Justified the WHOLE world (what we call objective Justification). If you actually read the Bible in the Historical Grammatical method, you would have probably picked upon this concept.

You have failed to respond to my arguments directly, and reinforced my point. The teachings of the Old Testament aren't relevant in modern times, ergo, homosexuals are A-OK. Jesus did not have a problem with gays.

I was a Christian for many years, and have studied the Bible. You are attempting to paint me as ignorant, but it's not going to work.

And... seriously... Me dragging Christianity into the discussion? Did you even read the article that IB posted up? Get a grip.

In regards to women voting in elections, I'm sure you're aware that modern Democratic governments were not exactly relevant by those who penned the Bible. However, I can give you an example in which women were to hold no authority, thus having less than equal rights. Oh yeah... in the New Testament!

Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet.

You're damn right I'm intolerant of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin! You're GOD DAMN RIGHT about that!

[mattblancarte]

You can download the whole series from Amazon. I dont know if you can buy themas a bundle, but it's $2 per episode or $15 per season. It's the show that made me politically-interested.

Crossing my fingers that it'll be on Netflix. I have heard rave reviews about it, though. Just finished the entire Star Trek TNG series, so I'm up for a new show. Looks like we have a winner.

[IBCoupe]

The writing is what makes the show. First four seasons are epic. The next 1.5 kinda slump, but the last 1.5 is pretty good. Sorkin left after season 4, and that's what accounts for the quality change. By the time the series starts following the presidential campaigns, the writing has recovered.

[stebo0728]

You can download the whole series from Amazon. I dont know if you can buy themas a bundle, but it's $2 per episode or $15 per season. It's the show that made me politically-interested.

Crossing my fingers that it'll be on Netflix. I have heard rave reviews about it, though. Just finished the entire Star Trek TNG series, so I'm up for a new show. Looks like we have a winner.

If you really wanna get a twist in your religious nether-region, watch Ancient Aliens. Its a Histroy Channel series.

[IBCoupe]

nether-region

Dammit. Now I'm going to be thinking about Kaylee. There goes the rest of my workday.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHFuzbeTPew[/youtube]

[Cold_Zero]

You have failed to respond to my arguments directly, and reinforced my point. The teachings of the Old Testament aren't relevant in modern times, ergo, homosexuals are A-OK.

You failed to understand my point. What you are teaching is Antinomianism. Which has been refuted as a heresy, not only by the Scriptures, but by the Councils and Church Fathers. It would probably be best to have this discussion outside this forum as I think we have crossed over the line, into a full blown religious argument.

Jesus did not have a problem with gays.

Again, if you understood what I had said, you would understand that a ‘household divided against itself cannot stand.' I am purposely avoiding being direct as not to get banned from this forum.

I was a Christian for many years, and have studied the Bible. You are attempting to paint me as ignorant, but it's not going to work.

Do you want a cookie?

And... seriously... Me dragging Christianity into the discussion? Did you even read the article that IB posted up? Get a grip.

While I understand the main emphasis of the article was NOT christiainity, but was about bullying. Need I point out that it was YOU who started the ‘bash fest’ on christiainity?

In regards to women voting in elections, I'm sure you're aware that modern Democratic governments were not exactly relevant by those who penned the Bible. However, I can give you an example in which women were to hold no authority, thus having less than equal rights. Oh yeah... in the New Testament!

Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet.

You're damn right I'm intolerant of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin! You're GOD DAMN RIGHT about that!

Wow you plucked out a ‘proof text’ and misapplied it to make your point. Typical. So somehow teaching means voting or holding office in a governmental sense. You get the ‘Mangle the Scriptures Award’ for the day.

[mattblancarte]

The writing is what makes the show. First four seasons are epic. The next 1.5 kinda slump, but the last 1.5 is pretty good. Sorkin left after season 4, and that's what accounts for the quality change. By the time the series starts following the presidential campaigns, the writing has recovered.

Don't spoil it for me now. Sounds good though I'm going to be watching it. Good change of pace from 176 episodes of Picard... Although, can one ever have too much Picard?

If you really wanna get a twist in your religious nether-region, watch Ancient Aliens. Its a Histroy Channel series.

Haha I've done some very superficial research into the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis. Quite intriguing, but there is overwhelming evidence that men are responsible for all advances in tech, society, etc.

I actually watched the first Ancient Aliens show on Netflix a while ago.

Most of the folks on the show display logic in the following manner: "I don't know, therefore... Aliens."

[stebo0728]

You're damn right I'm intolerant of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin! You're GOD DAMN RIGHT about that!

I think your problem is more with their outspokenness of their belief, or their desire to convert others to their belief, moreso than their holding the belief alone, AMIRITE?

I mean seriously, its a game of social outrage. For years everyone got outraged about things like living together before marriage, or childbearing out of wedlock, (and here in Glory Land the outrage of interracial marriage) but finally society won those battles, and the outspoken quieted. Its not that those acts aren't still considered sins by whomever once believed it, they've just joined the ranks of other sins no one cares about. Homosexuality is the new fight, and I'd wager in the future, it too will join the "who cares" ranks, to be replaced by something else, perhaps polygamy, or maybe something else society generally considers shady currently. But beliefs are a freedom anyone enjoys. Its the assertion of those beliefs beyond their own person that starts to cause problems.

[stebo0728]

Most of the folks on the show display logic in the following manner: "I don't know, therefore... Aliens."

HA so true, but they do it so terrifically that you just cant help but believe them.

[IBCoupe]

Don't spoil it for me now. Sounds good though I'm going to be watching it. Good change of pace from 176 episodes of Picard... Although, can one ever have too much Picard?

Nevar! I really wish Patrick Stewart would offer up his vocal talents for Star Trek Online.