If you are not familiar with what happened earlier this week when Jason Collins, an NBA player, who stated publicly that he was gay (apparently the first such participant in a major men’s professional sport to do so), click on this link and catch up. When you do, be sure and watch the video embedded in the article showing Chris Broussard’s comments when asked what he thought about the fact that Collins, the gay athlete, also claimed to be a Christian! Broussard’s answer was refreshing and uncommon in our present atmosphere. It was also brave—borne out by the fact that the article I am referencing concerns ESPN’s decision not to fire him-for exercising his first amendment rights!
But here is the part I am interested in. In the video, Broussard’s answer is rebutted by LZ Granderson, an ESPN contributor, who, as indicated by his comments, must be gay. Here’s what Mr. Granderson said:
“Well, my response is that faith, just like love, just like marriage is personal and that if you try to use a broad brush to paint everyone’s faith what you really are painting is a world which is comfortable for you and not a world in which, in this country, we’re allowed various forms of religion and just because someone doesn’t agree with one person’s interpretation of the Bible versus the other doesn’t mean that they have the exclusive rights to dictate what that person how that person should live.”
The idea of “personal” faith has taken on new meaning of late! It doesn’t just mean personal in the sense of privately held or arrived at out of the public spot light. Instead, it means personal and private interpretation. It means I can decide subjectively what Christianity is and bend it to fit my own personal lifestyle. It almost sounds as if Mr. Granderson is trying to say that in America we have been given permission to redefine Christianity to fit our whims, as though it is our right.
Mr. Granderson is correct in his understanding that he is free to say what he wants about Christianity and he is free to live how he wants and call it Christianity. For that matter he can bow down and worship a bag of sink stoppers if he wants to and call that Christianity. But that doesn’t make it true! Along these lines there is a growing disconnect between the Church and the culture. The Church is not saying that a person is not free to pursue whatever type of lifestyle the law allows them to, though we certainly reserve our rights to speak out and work towards more righteous laws. But we are saying that just because the law or public sentiment or Aunt Effie says something is right doesn’t make it so!
By the way, there is a difference between the truth that our nation allows us to have various forms of religion and the question of whether or not those religions are valid before Almighty God! The Bible defines Christianity, not America!
Categories: Culture Apologetic, Current Event
Reblogged this on The Christ and Culture Update and commented:
More faulty logic
Very well said! Thanks for sharing this
Postmodernism on display. It’s an interesting time we live in. On one side of culture we have the very idea of absolute truth being seen as abrasive and arrogant, and on the other we have neo-athiesm essentially worshiping science as absolute truth. I’m very interested in how these two ideas mingle in our society.
You said it well! The intolerance of “tolerance”!
He’s only saying that your religious beliefs do not permit you to force another person to live the way you want them to. That’s the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
The issue here from a Christian standpoint is not whether or not a person can practice practically whatever he or she chooses, it’s the redefinition of evangelical Christianity. And one is free to redefine even that but not without resistance from those who disagree. Broussard’s statement from the video that according to the Bible Collins would not be considered a Christian is accurate from an evangelical perspective. One can dislike that interpretation, but it is our interpretation. Broussard I suspect would agree that Collins is free to do as he pleases but if he endeavors to redefine evangelical Christianity he will meet resistance. Theoretically that right to disagree is covered as well.