As I've talked about here before, I've had to make peace with my fundamentalist christian past and - as much as possible - with my family members who still hold those beliefs. I don't feel the need to change them or judge them. If they are unhappy (and believe me...they are), it is their job - just as it was mine - to find their own resolution.
And so I resent it all to hell when Erickson says stuff like this.
The secularists of this world, I believe, can embrace fully contradictory things like support for gay rights and the advance of Islam into the Western World, because those things come from this world, not from Christ. The left is perfectly capable of contradiction and hypocrisy because they believe in nothing so much as themselves and the things of this world. Therefore, to them, there can be no contradiction and no hypocrisy in their world unless it comes from those who fail to meet the standards set by the faith of so many Christians.Essentially what he's saying is that - as a secularist - I don't have moral standards because I don't embrace his religion. In other words, his religion is the sole arbiter of morality. If we could get to the place where we both recognize that we each have a moral code that sometimes overlaps and sometimes doesn't, we could talk. But that's now how Erickson sees the world.
There is no difference between the believer and the atheist “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. It’s just that only the believer is held, in the secular world, to account because only the believer embraces the standards of the faith.
Even now in the 21st century after the birth of Christ, there is still true Good and there is still true Evil and there is still true Truth.In that formulation, he embraces true Good and true Truth and what I believe is cast as true Evil.
What I also resent in all this is his rather narrow definition of morality. In Erickson's world view that word is reserved for those who are against abortion, marriage equality and any role for government in addressing the ravages of capitalism. There is never any mention of the things that are primary in my moral code: compassion, empathy, justice, equality, forgiveness, humility, generosity, kindness, gratitude.
Finally, if I did define myself as a christian, I would take great offense at Erickson's description of Jesus.
These secularists have made a concerted effort to turn the world hostile to that faith and belief and have allied themselves with weak theologians to turn young Christians into more worldly, secularly focused milquetoast weepers worshiping an effeminate Christ who only hugs kids and cries, but does not fight, does not take sides, and is accommodationist to the world and its amorality and increasing immorality because, dude, he hung out with prostitutes and cried about another dude dying. They want to define the Christ they prefer to believe in, rather than believe the Christ that is.Excuse me for a minute while I put my feminist hat on. But since when does "effeminate" equate with not fighting and not taking sides? Puhleeze brother!!!!!
Then lets talk for a minute about the one time when Christ chose to fight. It was when he lost his temper over the greed of the money changers exploiting people who came to worship at the temple. When is the last time you heard any of these fundamentalist moralizers fighting the exploitation of people by the greedy money changers? Not so much. So who is it that is defining the Christ they prefer to believe in, rather than believe the Christ that is?
I truly am sick and tired of folks like Erickson being given the platform as the moral arbiters in our discourse. As a secular leftist, I have morals too. Folks like me tend to not put them front and center because we don't want to shove our moral code down the throats of others. But it is a grave mistake to take that silence for vacuity.