Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Walsh Should Resist Copying His Foes
He accuses left-wing progressives of being hateful.
And then he goes on to call one of them a "pompous, pasty white carnival barker." And a "sycophantic hack."
Matt Walsh is quickly garnering fame among young conservatives as a no-holes-barred, tell-it-like-it-is blogger. Some people find his writing refreshing, as if somebody younger than Rush Limbaugh is finally speaking their language.
But is it the language of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
In this particular instance, Walsh is venting his rage against the liberal media machine. It seems that a lot of professional sports writers and fans are excoriating retired NFL coach Tony Dungy over Dungy's lack of enthusiasm for football's first openly gay player. When asked whether he'd have wanted draftee Michael Sam on his team, Dungy opined that all of the associated distractions over Sam's sexuality would be counter-productive for the team as a whole. And it appears that many football fans are aghast that Dungy, now working as a network television football analyst, displays what they consider to be blatant bigotry against gays.
In sports circles, Dungy is known as an ardent evangelical. So even though his quote was not about the morality of Sam's sexuality, liberals have translated it into one.
Walsh's main point in taking on Dungy's critics is that the former football coach did not specifically denigrate homosexuality generally, or Sam specifically. Dungy merely pointed out that as a coach, he wouldn't have wanted a player's sexuality - which is not a primary consideration when it comes to winning football games - to so dominate his overall team. And nobody can deny that having the NFL's first openly gay player on their team isn't going to be a significant distraction. Just look at how Dungy's innocent comments have exploded in the media.
But Walsh doesn't leave it there. He's not content to merely point out that Dungy's comments have been grossly taken out of context by hard-line gay advocates. He wants to take things further, and try to prove how the firestorm over Dungy's comments represents an obfuscation of Dungy's First Amendment rights. If you're not going to be gung-ho about the homosexual lifestyle, Walsh argues, then you're Public Enemy Number One. And to a certain extent, Walsh is correct.
Walsh believes that liberals hate anybody who does not profess unequivocal support for homosexuality in every facet of society. If you express hesitation regarding the appropriateness of homosexuality in any form, such as gender distinction when it comes to public restrooms, or whether churches should be able to consider sexual preference when hiring their employees, Walsh says left-wingers will try to discredit you. And again, for the most part, Walsh is correct.
It's a hard enough point to make in our day and time, with the society we have that, as Walsh accurately portrays, believes traditional morality is now immoral.
But then Walsh goes and blows his whole argument.
Not only does he describe sportswriter Dan Wetzel as the "pasty white carnival barker," but he blasts cable TV talking head Keith Olbermann's own hollow viciousness towards Dungy.
"I’ll say this for Olbermann," Walsh gloats. "Once he’s fired again, he can look back at his stints on Current TV, MSNBC, and ESPN 2, and take pride in being the only guy who wasn’t good enough to hold a job at the three most irrelevant networks in the history of television."
Aw, shucks, Walsh. What a mature thing to include in your blog post.
Ironically enough, Walsh catches himself in his own net. While he blames liberal progressives for wanting to "punish the transgressor for his scandalous lack of progressive piety," and that they're "willing to say anything to make sure that he feels your rage," isn't Walsh doing the same thing?
Meanwhile, if Walsh is writing from a Christ-honoring point of view, should he be so concerned about matching hate for hate? What about the Fruit of the Spirit? Doesn't he understand that the core reason people don't like what Dungy may have been insinuating lies not in their personal decision to hate sexual moralists, but in their sinful perversions that manifest themselves through hate?
Not that followers of Christ shouldn't get angry when we see sin, but in our anger, should we ourselves sin? Sure, Christ twice called the religious leaders of His time on Earth a "brood of vipers," but was He being petty or juvenile, insulting them for dramatic effect? In both of the instances when the Bible records this phrase, in Matthew 3:7 and 12:34, Christ was contrasting Eden's serpent from good fruit, and He clarified what He meant by teaching how the mouth reveals what is in our heart.
All Walsh does is launch a few petulant zingers to entertain his audience.
Yet Christ never calls us to make fun of our adversaries. We should pray for them, and pity them, and correct them in truth and love. Yes, this is a battle, and it's a battle between righteousness and evil. But don't forget: it's Christ's battle, and He's already won it.
So what are we to do? Honor Him by testifying to His goodness, truth, power, and authority. Oh - and His love. How? By modeling the Fruit of the Spirit, so that the world around us will know that we are Christians by our... love.
Not our hate, or mean-spiritedness, or our snappy come-backs, or even our subconscious assumptions that Christ can't possibly use us in the ministry of His grace and reconciliation that He may be working within our enemies.
This battle over homosexuality's political correctness isn't going away any time soon. So pace yourself, Walsh. And if you're going to copy anybody, emotion for emotion, don't copy the liberals you like to lambaste.
Copy Christ, the One Who died to pay the debt of your sins. As well as the sins of any liberals He deigns to redeem.