More Active Posts
Front Page
Homeschooled, conservative family, murderous?
 |
 101 Comments |
Matthew Murray - 24, raised in a Bible-teaching home - walked into a church and a parachurch ministry a few days ago firing gun shots at Christians. Murray then died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. We may never know why this happened but Murray’s life, as associated on the ex-Pentecostal website “Azusa Street Survivors,” paints a chilling narrative. Murray’s screen name is thought to be “nghtmrchld26.” The FBI has pulled several posts by nghtmrchld26 that speak with detail about shootings, being homeschooled, and rejected by YWAM.
The Associated Press reports nghtmrchld26 saying on Sunday, “I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @ %$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill.”
Describing his daily home life on December 24, 2006 nghtmrchld26 wrote, “We had bible memory, hymn singing, and prayer for at least the first two hours of the day growing up all the way till age 18. I don’t think it worked at keeping me in their system though.”
He also seems to resent religious people who wed Christianity with Republican politics: “I remember growing up in pentecostalism/evangelicalism, we were always told to support the republicans/conservatives and to ‘hate those evil satanic democrats.’ Jesus never said to put our trust in any political leader, yet we see so many christians trying sooooo hard to believe that ‘America was founded on fundamentalist evangelical christianity’ and we must turn america back towards God!!!”(January 14, 2007)
What are we to learn from this? We may remember that the shooter of the Virgina Tech massacre, Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and wounded many more, before committing suicide, was also reared in a suburban conservative evangelical context. Both Murray and Cho experienced rejection and pain from the Church and retaliated later. The two seem to have amazing similarities in their stories of conservative Christianity and experiencing rejection by the “beautiful people.”
Cho was rejected by kids in his youth group. On May 8, 2007 Murray alleges that YWAM rejected him because he wasn’t cool enough, “social enough,” and too “introverted.” Murray then laments, “If you’re an extrovert, and popular, then yes, there is plenty of love waiting for you in christianity.”
What, if anything, is happening in evangelical sub-culture that seems to be producing a generation of angry, vengeful young men (and angry middle-aged blogging men)? As the story of Murray’s life unfolds, I’m sure we will learn more about whether or not his perceptions were actually true. For now, it seems that evangelicals may need to start paying more attention to what’s happening to young men. Over the years I’ve seen this more and more in youth and college culture: In order to be loved by the masses one needs to look like an Abercrombie and Fitch model, be extremely outgoing, and publicly sinless. There are even some ministries and churches over the years that targeted “popular” kids in high schools and colleges to draw others. Many young people perceive this to be the case in the church and harbor anger.
Go for the influencers, right? Shouldn’t the church be different, some ask?
In the end, it will be difficult to reconcile this evil violence with a confession of faith like the one written on April 2, 2007 by nghtmrchld26.
For me, yes, “Jesus is the way” indeed. Jesus is an archetype, the perfect man and divine at the same time. Indeed, we all need to be “more like Christ” as in reality, we all have the spark of divinity within all of us. I have found the becoming like Christ is not something that suddenly happens after converting in a church or saying a sinner’s prayer, this is evident. Rather we become “like-Christ” as we trod The Path, awakening to more and more light. Jesus didn’t say “pray the sinners prayer” but rather “he that believeth on me shall have everlasting life.” How do I “have faith in Christ”? Well, by believing in the mystery and archetype of the Christ, knowing that humanity is not without hope and that the Divine Plan will indeed be fulfilled.
Arvada police spokeswoman Susan Medina won’t confirm that nghtmrchld26 is Murray. Sadly, he’s an influencer now. Nghtmrchld26 has not posted since the horror unfolded Sunday.
 |
Topic: Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: home schooling, matthew murray, violence, youth |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
At the worst heights of Soviet and particularly Chinese communism, it was very popular to force people to engage in public “self-criticism.” As I understand it, an individual would be requiredhttp://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-26/25182.html to speak to their peers and confess how they had failed to live up to the wonderful ideals of Marxist-Leninism and how they were were working on making themselves better.
Communism as a cult:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-26/25182.html
Last message a little bit messed up. The first link doesn’t work; the second one does. Sorry.
The above post by Anthony Bradley strikes me as grossly irresponsible.
My husband took a look at an “ex-Pentecostals” website. His impression was that these people came out of the kind of churches that went a bit over the edge, or had controlling pastors.
Not the kind of Pentecostalism that our family is familiar with.
Joel Mark post 3,
and why is Anthony Bradley being irresponsible here?
I tell you what, why don’t we just use this tragic murder case to drum up more mistrust and hatred for groups we don’t like. That will be fun, especially on a blog.
The anti-evangelicals and Christian haters can use this to bash evangelicals and people of faith and blame them for our worsst pathologies.
The evangelicals can use this to bash their opponents who presumably got through to this murderer to make him hate Christians so much.
And let’s feel sorry for one(s) faced so much alleged rejection and abuse that their self-pity finally drove the poor dears to lash out at their perceived persecutors.
Let’s isolaqte the factors about his upbringing and recent influences that feed our own prejudices about groups and influences among us.
And as we feed this useless blame game so soon after the event, let’s do it under the self-righteous pretense that we are asking “what can we learn from this?”
Let’s blame the community for this!
His problem wasn’t religious, it was not having all the nuts and bolts properly tightened.
Religion itself isn’t a problem and for some, it’s a source of comfort. However, when he should have been seeing a shrink, some would have him pray. You can’t mask mental illness with an interest in the occult. When it’s time to see a doctor, see a doctor.
Bradley’s post said, “On May 8, 2007 Murray alleges that YWAM rejected him because he wasn’t cool enough, “social enough,” and too “introverted.”
Frankly, I don’t trust Murray’s pathetic self-righteous spin on why he was rejected. Honestly is speaks well of YWAM’s standards for selecting missionaries (a position of responsible and influential service) to see that Murray was turned down.
The article continues: “Murray then laments, ‘If you’re an extrovert, and popular, then yes, there is plenty of love waiting for you in christianity.’”
This reveals a pathological self-pity. I don’t give credence to this self-serving spin at all.
What outrages me about Bradley’s comments is that he follows this self-serving tripe with this question:
“What is happening in evangelical sub-culture that seems to be producing a generation of angry, vengeful young men (and angry middle-aged blogging men)?”
Who are you lumping Murray in with in this qestion?
And whatever factors are “producing” this anger, you have no reasonable grounds to implicate so prematurely the evangelical sub-culture.
I would also not use this case to blame all bloggers (or a blogger sub-culture) that post virulent anti-Christian comments — which Murray was known to do frequently).
I blame Murray.
It is nothing new, not peculiar to this generation, that religious extremism can and does push people mentally over the edge. Van Gogh–while he didn’t kill anybody–was raised by missionary parents. The madman–in The Professor and the Madman, by Simon Winchester–was also raised by missionary parents. He did kill someone. (there are others as well; I wrote a paper on this once, John Brown, etc.). The problem seemed to be the extreme burden and guilt of sin without any way to overcome their sin. There is a Christianity that sucks Christ and the cross right out of the scripture. This is a dangeours, cultish Christianity. This is the type Night Train would say “doesn’t work.” :ike nghtmrchld26 I too resent Christianity having an arranged marriage with Republicanism in America. Not that I’d kill anyone over it.
When I homeschooled my children–for about four years–I realized there was this extreme sub-culture within homeschooling (NOT ALL HOMESCHOOLING). And now kids from that sub-culture are adults and many of them are wrecks. None are out to kill people as I know of, but too many are perverted, addicted, depressed.
I do think churches and home school groups need to be wary of this type of nightmare child. He is not just a prodigal; he is the extreme end of repressive legalism.
Families are still in tender grief over this and the dead are probably not buried yet.
To Bradley, I would say, “control yourself and decist in this sort of abulence-chasing blame journalism. At least that is how it struck me. In time and after some careful and balanced information can be processed fairly and with less emotion, maybe we can learn from this.
But now is not that time. I myself do not claim to have enough information to use this story (at this point) to point fingers at anyone or any group beyond the murderer himself.
I agree with Joel. This kind of awful can happen anywhere and within any group in the country. I too was surprised by this article, especially the title.
Great. I am waiting for the critics to start saying that all homeschoolers are maladjusted angry individuals. But let’s remember the other homeschooler that made headlines this weekend; Heisman winner Tim Tebow. He certainly doesn’t fit that profile. Matthew Murray was messed up period. He might have done the same thing no matter what.
ADIOS,
I just don’t think that journalists or arm-chair bloggers can know yet just what it was that pushed this guy over the edge. I don’t know if it was religious extremism, or anti-religious extremism, or if it had much to do with religion at all. It could have been mainly a chemical imbalance for all we know.
I niether blame or exonerate any of the factors being bandied about.
Let’s guard against thinking we know more than we know.
At this time, let’s pray for the families in such excruciating and senseless pain right now. I hope they get the help and cdomfort they need from whatever healthy resourse they can (both spiritual and psychological). And pray for YWAM and that church.
Well, I applaud World for putting up this story. Day after day I come here and see similar stories with a subtext about how secularists are to blame for the ill of the day. There is nothing irresponsible about recognizing that religion and homeschooling does not cure all ills.
Kathy,
That is certainly true, but I’m glad WMB posted the obvious. Home schoolers cannot wave Tebow and spelling bee champs like a flag and then try and bury Murray.
The spokesman for YWAM did a great job of trying to be diplomatic when saying they showed Murray the door, not because he wasn’t popular, but because he was mentally unstable.
During the Columbine aftermath home schoolers were quick to blame the public school system for producing murderers. And public schools looked to their own to try to prevent this sort of thing. Just saying, home school groups should do the same. “What does our system do to and with the mentally ill.”
And Random Name’s first post is interesting. What he caustically describes sounds an awful lot like what the Christian Brothers asked us to do back in high school. Public confession about not living up to ones principles? Um …
Joel Mark post 6,
so are you asserting that Mathew Murray was not raised in a Bible teaching home?
Bradley raises interesting questions but I think Joel Mark is correct that it is much too soon to be making those kind of speculations.
I was not homeschooled, but I did experience the push at church to be more extroverted. I even have a book (a fairly recent one) that includes “introvert” in a list of sins. I always thought it was a spiritual defect in me until my husband took a Myers-Briggs test and we read a book that discussed the various personality types. God uses extroverts and He uses introverts, but they have different ways of serving, and unfortunately since - statistically speaking - most people are extroverts, their way of serving tends to be present as the norm in many churches.
Joel,
I also disagree. I think we must get these things out into the open in order for genuine healing to take place.
And by the way, Matthew Murray is not the only child living under a cloud of pastors and parents who teach alienation, fear, suspicion, and hate. This kind of mind control happens all around the world and it shouldn’t happen in a Christian setting — but it does. And as Christians, we should own it and deal with it.
Go out and rent “Jesus Camp” for starters.
I agree with you, Adios, although Joel Mark may be correct in saying we don’t know a lot yet. My husband and I had a daughter who left a Christian school very angry. Her anger was justified and went on for several years. Fortunately, we were able to remain in prayer for her and kept the lines of communication open with her. We reminded her over and over that what she witnessed at this school was not Christianity but legalism, which is a distortion and really what the Pharisees were all about. God works in mysterious ways and this young woman is now a strong believer and is being used by God. The school no longer exists. We are all stronger for our experience. If we refuse to ever see the flaws in some homeschooling, some churches, or some ministries, we will continue seeing people hurt and actually leaving what is a false Christianity. Souls are at stake when we bury our heads.
I groaned when I saw this headline as well. Two people does not a trend make.
I think it’s hard for anyone to recognize their child may be mentally unbalanced, and then to know what to do about it–especially when they are an adult. We should have compassion and not be throwing rocks.
ROGER,
Get WHAT out in the open?
Our anger? Our premature blame, even though we currently have a pitifully small grasp of the facts and motives at this early point?
I think we live in a culture that tends to reward anger and feed it and I see little healing power in that.
Do a few faith-related people or groups feed anger? Yes.
Do a few non-faith related people or groups feed anger? Yes.
But it’s the implied group-think that is so unjustified in this case at this point.
Thanks for sharing that KI. I too grew up with some kids who became so upset with the legalism of their homes/schools that they rebelled.
Most of them, however, are back in a church setting that’s even stronger than their faith (or unbelief) was originally. The Lord is indeed a good Shepherd!
“My Sheep hear my voice, and I know them and the follow Me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
ROGER,
You spoke of some alleged “cloud of pastors and parents who teach alienation, fear, suspicion and hate.’
Well, Roger, it can be just as harmful for and alleged “cloud” journalists and bloggers who “teach alienation, fear, suspicion and hate.”
Some people may be living under a “cloud” of secularists and social-workers who teach alienation, fear, suspicion, and hate.
In short, abuses occur across the human landscape and across all ideological and faith or non-faith spectrums.
But all that is no reason to cast blame at any particular group based on this particular unhinged thug.
Evangelicals were the victims in this despicable crime. So, before the dead are even buried, it is irresponsible to use this to immediately throw blame back in the face of evangelicals and/or evangelical sub-cultures.
You may think I am thin-skinned and maybe so, but I would not use this case to blame secualarists and non-Christians either.
Pastors and parents have no corner on “mind control” Roger. No one does.
Joel Mark,
I think Roger is referring to mind-control and legalism, not anger.
ADIOS,
I know.
And if Roger finds a case where mind-control and legalism is a proven problem, let him stand against it and criticize it specifically and courageously. I will stand with him.
But let’s not use this case to make generalizations that can apply equally to all groups across the board to attack particular groups, like (in Roger’s words) “pastors and parents.”
Deal with the ones who ARE the problem, not with the group that the abusers are exploiting.
I’m with Joel Mark on this one - Bradley’s “article” is laughable. Who really takes nutcases like this seriously?
And his so called confession looks a synthesis of Christian and New Age thinking - if he meant a word of it at all.
He is a statistical outlier, and should be treated as such.
The above post by Anthony Bradley strikes me as grossly irresponsible.
And???
What’s new?
This is the same guy who rails against premarital sex here, and the very same day posts a filthy song video featuring lyrics encouraging female masturbation on his own site.
This is the same guy who runs around telling youth groups that their parents are messing them up so bad they’ll need counseling into their thirties, and then turns around and condemns these same unfit parents for not adopting foster kids, and screwing up even more kids for decades.
I think it’s pretty clear by now that Bradley has some “personal issues” when it comes to suburban evangelicals.
I agree with Joel Mark’s assessment of this Bradley article. It is something I would expect from someone like the anti-Christian Christopher Hitchens, not a professor at Covenant Seminary. However, I have not paid particular attention to what he has written in the past, but will do so now. Just where is Bradley coming from? I must learn more and will reserve judgment until then—something that Bradley failed to do, as Joel has aptly pointed out.
Random (#1): Very interesting link to the Epoch Times and its commentaries on communism. That cult (communism) has produced murderers by the millions—its core doctrines boldly justify the practice, much like the Nazis and segments of Islam.
The core doctrines of Christianity emphasize just the opposite: love. Unfortunately, some family members go astray and others are quick to tar the whole family with their sins. The killer Murray is like Cain who murdered his brother Abel.
Do we now lend ammunition to those who would condemn Abel’s entire family for what Cain did? That is what I find so disconcerting about this Bradley article—shame on him today for what I hope is just a temporary aberration in his writing.
You can be sure that if this guy had been an atheist or something, people would be leading the charge on WorldMag to rake him over the coals.
It’s my observation that conservative Christians try to cover up and hide their “failures” and shortcomings. They rarely want to admit that there is a downside or that everything is not always as rosy as it appears to be. And they certainly don’t want to admit that their faith doesn’t “take” for everyone. Even admitting to doubts or questions about the faith is frowned upon.
Having said all that, I’m still inclined to believe that this young man suffered from a mental illness to have done what he did. As to what caused that illness, that will be debated for some time to come. It was probably a combination of things, including the strict religious culture he was raised in.
I thank Anthony Bradley for having the courage to raise these issues.
Musing: so are you asserting that Mathew Murray was not raised in a Bible teaching home?
This is a malicious post from Musing. Joel is asserting no such thing; he is asserting that it is wrong to blame evangelicals or any group for the evil acts of any of its members. The Columbine killers came from a secular background; Christians at that didn’t smear or even raise the issue of the secularists being the cause of the killing.
I, also, agree with Joel that Mr. Bradley is way out of line in arguing that the evangelical “sub-culture” is producing an angry, vengeful group of young and men.
Coyote Blue says this best: I agree with Joel. This kind of awful can happen anywhere and within any group in the country. I too was surprised by this article, especially the title.
Something that exhibits the fruit of the devil is not Christian. Spiritual abuse is the worst kind of abuse. It occurs in many places with many names.
#30. Anlir wrote; “You can be sure that if this guy had been an atheist or something, people would be leading the charge on WorldMag to rake him over the coals.”
I’m not “sure” of this at all. And if anyone did, I would criticize that too.
Anlir’s FALSE certainty about another ‘group’ (”conservative Christians”) is prejudicial and just what I am objecting to here.
No one is denying a ‘downside’ for ANY group that includes human beings, Anlir. Your prejudice becomes you.
Anlir, having conversed with you often on this blog, when you speak in dogmatic terms of absolute assurance, that is when your point is usually weakest (in my view). And that observation has to do with you, not any group with which you may be identified.
Christianity, or godliness (according to the Psalms) is not a label; it is a way of life.
Adios said, “Home schoolers cannot wave Tebow and spelling bee champs like a flag and then try and bury Murray.”
I don’t think these are analogous. Tebow and spelling bee champs are not raised up as generic examples of home-schoolers who made good. They are news because they refute the common and continuous criticisms that homeschooling produces inferior education and denies children the opportunity to play sports.
If home-school advocates insisted that all home-schoolers ended up perfect, then it would be appropriate to use Murray as an example to prove them wrong. But I don’t believe they do, although if someone can produce evidence that they do, I’ll retract.
And Anlir, your paragraph “…that conservative Christians try to cover up and hide their “failures” and shortcomings. They rarely want to admit that there is a downside or that everything is not always as rosy as it appears to be. And they certainly don’t want to admit that their faith doesn’t “take” for everyone. Even admitting to doubts or questions about the faith is frowned upon.” is a bunch of crap. Having been around this very blog for a long time, you know this isn’t true.
Although I certainly don’t know enough to say this as a fact, it does seem at this point that this young man was mentally ill and for whatever reasons did not receive enough of the right help to prevent this tragedy. His upbringing did not necessarily produce that. Sometimes it is a brain chemistry imbalance. I cannot fully fathom how much everyone involved is now suffering–his family, the victims’ families, the YWAM people who dealt with him, etc. Any who pray, let’s do that–for the people who are suffering, and that the real reasons for all this be discerned, whatever they might be.
I love Joel’s statement, “Let’s guard against thinking we know more than we know.” It is good advice for every topic and should be posted at the beginning of every thread.
Excellent posts, Joel, and excellent reasonings.
Whether the popularity/acceptance issue was really a factor in these 2 instances does not obviate the issue that every youth group (of any kind - religous or not) faces with dealing with kids of varied social aptitude.
These 2 were both mentally unstable. A typical church youth group may not have been able to deal with them. But we should pay attention to whether our youth groups are doing a good job of reaching out to, and accepting, kids with a more normal/moderate level of social ineptness.
I’ve heard he was turned away from the missionary group because of “health” reasons. Also, fired from a job for unspecified reasons. I suspect there was something wrong with this kid. What I would like to know is whether he had ever been to a counselor? Was he on psychotropic meds? Or was he mentally ill but from a home that believed such problems could be dealt with through scripture reading and prayer?
Joel Mark came out with guns ablazing and then moderated his stance in later postings. We simply don’t have enough info - and will never have - to know what percentage of blame falls on Murray and what percentage may fall elsewhere.
Bad kids can come from the best of families. I also believe many of the leaders of tomorrow will have home school backgrounds. But I’ve also noticed that some homeschooled kids are weird.
Peter Leavitt post 31,
ah so you know why I posted this?
No I find the facts interesting but they are just that a single set of undifferentiated and un-analyzed facts.
But I do think the fact should be available for consideration.
I have made no judgement yet on why this event occurred. I don’t have enough information to judge yet.
But the only way we will get information is for it to be made available.
It sounded to me like Joel Mark in post 6 was arguing that this information should not have been made available. I certainly think you would agree that suppressing information would be inappropriate.
It does seem, however, based on the information provided in the article, that linking the screen name nghtmrchld26 with Matthew Murray may be premature. I could find no evidence in the article to confirm this linking.
Joel makes excellent points -
Anlir, having conversed with you often on this blog, when you speak in dogmatic terms of absolute assurance, that is when your point is usually weakest (in my view). And that observation has to do with you, not any group with which you may be identified.
Well, if one reads my writing on WorldMag for any length of time, one will see the following:
1. A lot of words qualifying words (”generally”, “usually”, “some”, etc.).
2. A fair amount of “on the one hand…but on the other hand” statements.
3. Statements of uncertainty (”I’m not too sure about…”).
4. A fair amount of questions and doubts.
5. Frequent use of phrases like “It’s my observation…” and “In my opinion…”
So to accuse me of “dogmatism” and absolutism is laughable.
To make sure that Joel doesn’t get the vapors over my writing,
I’ll re-phrase:
It’s my observation that someconservative Christians try to cover up and hide their “failures” and shortcomings.
P.S. I don’t identify with any group.
Attaway, Anlir, that’s kind of stickin’ it to ‘em to some degree. From my view, you’re probably right, it’s somewhat important to be, in one way or another if the case might call for it, assertive.
In my personal life, and in my participation on worldmagblog, I try to avoid making generalizations about groups such as groups of Christians, groups of Moslems, groups of Hindus, groups of Buddhists,etc. I have known people who belonged to each of these religious groups, and as far as I was able to perceive, they varied in personality, behavior, ethical and moral behavior, etc.
When I was a child, it was less common for someone to identify themselves in an assertive way as an atheist, though I would not say that atheists were persecuted. Over time, I noticed that Christians began to feel that atheists (and “secular humanists” and so on) had come to dominate our society and culture and many Christians began to perceive of themselves (in some very strange way) as a persecuted majority.
I would be loath to say in general that Communists and Nazis are undeserving of negative generalizations, though I suspect there were decent people who used those labels just to survive in their awful societies. The most well known case would be the German businessman (who I doubt was a “real” Nazi) who saved lives of many Chinese people during the horrible time period described as the “rape of Nanking” when Japanese soldiers occupied Nanking China and committed many atrocities.
I’m not sure how I can make this point without conveying an air of “tit for tat” gotcha. My argument at wmb for a long time has been that many conservative Christians (some of whom are participating in this discussion) are very careless and “generous” in making generalizations and assertions about the “mundane” (not spiritual world) behavior and character of atheists and homosexuals and liberals.
As the saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t.
The two groups I am more inclined to generalize abo
Last incoherent line a mistake. Sorry. Not having a good day with posting messages coherently. Random people say, how is that different from any other day?
Musing: It sounded to me like Joel Mark in post 6 was arguing that this information should not have been made available. I certainly think you would agree that suppressing information would be inappropriate.
Joel Mark in post #6 said nothing about suppressing information. He in that post was clearly objecting to blaming of evangelicals and any other group group for the evil behavior of any
of its members.
You in your inimitably clever and in this case nasty style asked Joel whether he was asserting that Mathew Murray was not raised in a Bible teaching home, when it was crystal clear that he made no such assertion.
Anlir (#30 wrote; “You can be sure that if this guy had been an atheist or something, people would be leading the charge on WorldMag to rake him over the coals.”
How do you know that Matthew Murray himself was not an atheist? He sure hated Christians. If he was an atheist (despite his upbringing) it would be wrong to rake atheists over the coals because of what this murderer did. But I see nothing wrong with raking the murderer himself over the coals.
Anlir, in this case you did not use subjective or qualifying terms like; ”generally”, “usually”, “some”, etc. You did not say, “on the one hand…” You did not say, ”I’m not too sure about…”. You did not say it was just your opinion.
You said, “You can be sure…”
Well, I disagree.
Random: My argument at wmb for a long time has been that many conservative Christians (some of whom are participating in this discussion) are very careless and “generous” in making generalizations and assertions about the “mundane” (not spiritual world) behavior and character of atheists and homosexuals and liberals.
Could you be a bit more specific about the faulty generalizations that conservative Christians have made about the behavior and character of of atheists, homosexuals, and liberals? Your above remark is a dubious generalization itself about conservative Christians.
One can vigorously oppose atheism, homosexuality, and liberals without making any general claim about their mundane behavior.
Peter Leavitt post 48,
well since I had not blamed evangelicals for the incident and you state “objecting to blaming of evangelicals and any other group group for the evil behavior of any of its members” is inappropriate, then it would seem we are in substantial agreement.
I do believe, however, that this holds both ways. If we are not to blame evangelicals as a group we should also not be blaming secularists, atheists, liberals, or agnostics as a group.
And if you agree to what appears to be your own professed opbjective of not blaming groups for the behaviors of individual memebers, why then so will I agree to not blame groups for the actions of their individual members.
Is that a fair deal?
Really, it’s tiresome for others to have to put up with a diversion into discussing people’s perceived personal traits on here, instead of focusing on the story at hand and the points that people raise.
Also, there seems to be a nasty habit of pulling out words, phrases, and sentences and ripping them to shreds without keeping them in context. Usually it involves taking the words someone says and applying the worst/most negative possible meaning to them, and then acting insulted or attacking the person. Sometimes it’s a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the points/questions a person raises.
RN is funny. He posts a lengthy discussion explaining how he never groups people together and then ends with “most conservative Christians.” I guess he’s off the proverbial hook because he didn’t say “all.”
Musing, not being aware of any specific cases on this blog where conservatives have made dubious generalizations against other groups, one hardly sees the necessity of such a “deal.” Personally, I always try to avoid crude generalizations.
Again, one may argue strongly against various positions of secularists, atheists, et al without indulging in careless generalization.
Peter Leavitt post 54,
why then it seems we may get along very well!
#50 Peter
Thank you for your comment. This seems to go over some old ground.
Quite a while back, I pointed out that George Orwell and Albert Camus were two writers who could be reasonably described as atheists and leftists. However, they opposed both fascism and Communism, both in actual conflict where their lives were at risk and in their writing when it was unpopular to take the stands they did. I contrasted this with the general condemnation of atheists and leftists so often posted here.
An old argument we have had many times has to do with the characterization of homosexuals as “mentally ill.” I’ve said many times, that if someone believes God condemns homosexuality, that is a religious opinion that can not be “proved” by evidence, but the “mental illness” claim (presented in a variety of ways) is transferring dislike or disapproval into an inappropriate universe of discourse.
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” cover so many different types of people and opinions as to have very little “denotative” meaning, and on worldmagblog are mostly used as connotative insults.
One can vigorously oppose atheism, homosexuality, and liberals without making any general claim about their mundane behavior.
That is true. I won’t be reading wmb much longer, but I will say in advance that if you post your messages in keeping with that mode of discourse, it will represent an improvement over what I’ve seen in the past.
#53
Mommy, how do you suggest I state my point in such a way it will be accurate but not ruffle your feathers?
The most cogent point on this thread comes from Mommy as follows:
And Anlir, your paragraph “…that conservative Christians try to cover up and hide their “failures” and shortcomings. They rarely want to admit that there is a downside or that everything is not always as rosy as it appears to be. And they certainly don’t want to admit that their faith doesn’t “take” for everyone. Even admitting to doubts or questions about the faith is frowned upon.” is a bunch of crap. Having been around this very blog for a long time, you know this isn’t true. (-:
RN, don’t flatter yourself - you can’t ruffle my feathers.
I might add to Mommy’s remark that devout Christians fall on their knees daily to pray forgiveness for their manifold sins. We, also, on this blog are glad to apologize for any mistakes called to our attention.
Really, what one sees on a “hot” thread like this is a power struggle. Each one of us (myself included) tries to establish ourselves as “King of the Hill” on an issue, and put everyone else in a defensive position. In other words “I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s up to you to knock me off the throne”.
I think a big part of it is nothing more than a huge dose of Pride, with a little bit of self-righteous judgmentalism thrown in. Who wants to be shown they’re wrong on an issue or made out to be a fool? Guys are especially good at this, but the women are catching up.
But really, we all (including myself) could do with a bit more humility. Otherwise we just end up shouting at each other and going away mad.
Random: #58, I’ve never argued, as you insinuate, that homosexuals are “mentally ill.” While you repeatedly claim this, you have been unable to demonstrate it from any remark I have made on this blog.
I have argued, based on both the Bible and reason that homosexual behavior is a grave sin and a complex disorder of nature. Having read Phillip Rieff’s book The Triumph of the Therapeutic, I try not to phrase any argument on such a term as “mental illness.”
You have a distinctly cartoonist view of Christian conservatives that causes you time and again to avoid their specific positions on issues and to hurl ad hominem brickbats against them.
Peter,
I am glad that you have restated your comments about homosexuality in a more careful manner.
#62
Peter Leavitt,
I read Random’s comment in #58 as referring to conversations “we” as a group of people who comment on this blog have had, not you and he personally. I do remember that such claims have been made, though quite a while ago (perhaps during Joe Carter’s tenure?), and I don’t remember by whom.
I am also certain that generalizations have been made regarding groups such as liberals, by conservatives commenting here. But as the search feature only seems to bring up relatively recent threads (my recent searches have not found anything older than August), I would find it hard to provide examples, as no recent ones come to mind.
As a conservative Christian myself, I have experienced the tendency in some churches to avoid admitting faults (”it will hurt our testimony”), and discouraging questions and doubts. It is only relatively recently that I have realized that the churches where I experienced that were perhaps not, after all, as representative of conservative Christianity as I had always thought.
I’m with Joel Mark on this one - Bradley’s “article” is laughable. Who really takes nutcases like this seriously?
LMBO
I’m not even gonna go there!
Pauline, that we in #58 clearly was directed to me. Random and I have been over this ground several times.
Again, if anyone can find a specific posts here that involve unfair generalizations that conservative Christians have made, I am confident that any one of them would be quick to apologize.
This may seem a tendentious and irrelevant point on this thread; however, since Mr. Bradly remarked that What, if anything, is happening in evangelical sub-culture that seems to be producing a generation of angry, vengeful young men (and angry middle-aged blogging men)?” the issue needs to be addressed.
My apologies for so many posts on this thread.
Anybody want to give God credit for this?
One point that was made on a different thread early in the week by, I believe, Anlir* was that Christians have a hard time giving props to God for the bad as well as the good.
*I may be wrong. I am trying to find the original post and thread to link you all to. I apologize for being unorganized.
Rejection - I knew a lady who used to go to our church. Many of us tried to be her friend. She was accepted as part of our church family.
The problem was that she couldn’t accept being accepted. She would turn any little perceived slight into “rejection”. It was very sad.
I mention this story to point out that not everyone who thinks they’ve been rejected actually has been rejected. Often the sense of rejection comes from problems within.
Panther,
I think it was the “Oh, Susanna” thread on 12/8 (post #14). I make quite a few comments, so it’s hard for me to remember which threads I’ve commented on.
Whew, I thought I was the only one who got lost on this site.
#68
Good point. Everybody has their own “agendas.” Often your find yourself roleplaying in somebody else’s “psychodrama” without realizing it.
If they have a deadly weapon as a stage prop–not a good “visual aid.”
This is a bit OT, but unfair generalizations get made on these boards with some frequency and it’s not just toward the heathens but also toward the Christians both conservative and liberal. I somehow think we ar all better off to simply admit that, realize that it is human nature to make such generalizations, particularly with perceived enemies and try to do better. No one, imo, is well served by going back over slights, real or perceived.
Joel Mark, Night Train, Outkast, and Leavitt:
You guys are so predictable! After looking at the title of Anthony’s post, I surmised that the Comments would be littered with mindless, visceral, knee-jerk responses by the four of you. Thanks for not disappointing.
Anthony brings up a serious issue, though: Too many evangelical youth groups (and missions organizations) have become nothing more than A&F culture with a thin veneer of therapeutic moralism thrown in for good measure. In my former community, we evangelical grad students referred to the local PCA church as “Church of the Good Lookin’” (instead of Church of the Good Shepherd) because of the vanity, narcissism, and self-righteousness that pervaded the grad student ministry.
As evangelicals have become more image conscious in recent years, so too have we forgotten to care for the broken and the weak. Just like trendy bars, we want beautiful people with buff bodies and pleasant personalities. Cho and Murray are exceptional cases. Yet I can’t help but see them as part of God’s judgment against self-righteous image-obsessed American evangelicalism that drags the name of Christ through the muck.
And it is right that we talk about these things: “Let judgment begin with the house of God.”
Hey Joel,
You made your point concerning premature blame in post #6. I got that point and I agree with it.
However, two posts later, #8, you began to analyze the article as if you granted the facts as stated.
The short distance between your first point and your second belies the emotion you felt when you read the title, which by all reckoning is purposefully provocative just like all the other titles.
If you had posted #6 without posting #8 I would have stood next to you decrying the jump to judgment. But you lost the moral high ground after you decided to critique the boy’s comments. You, sir, did the very thing you said was wrong.
It’s obvious to me that you were more concerned with how this story reflected on you personally than you were about the family or their grief. You’re obvious purpose in writing post #8 was to distance Christians (read Joel) from his behavior. While we might all agree that a man such as Mr. Murray should be held personally responsible for his actions, the fact that post #8 came so close to post #6 reveals a double minded motive.
Now, there are those who believe that a brainwashed man is fully culpable for his actions since he is fully in control of them, but I am not yet convinced of this. If what this boy says is true, then he was the victim of very strong brainwashing techniques in the name of Jesus, which you and I both agree is not sanctioned by him in the slightest. You and I both know that genuine Christians would not put these kinds of pressures on a child. But you must be made aware, if you aren’t already that these groups exist and we, in the name of Jesus, need to do something about them. We need to clean up our own house, so to speak.
After looking at the title of Anthony’s post, I surmised that the Comments would be littered with mindless, visceral, knee-jerk responses by the four of you. Thanks for not disappointing.
Don’t mention it!
Also, there seems to be a nasty habit of pulling out words, phrases, and sentences and ripping them to shreds without keeping them in context.
You mean like the atheists, agnostics and other anti-Christians do when referring to the Holy Bible on this blog, Anlir?
Actually, that’s you, Outkast.
You’re the one that quoted 2 Samuel 12 to “prove” that God hates polygamy on the Traditional Marriage thread the other day. When 2 Samuel 12 shows no such thing. It shows the exact opposite, which is why you left out this part:
Anyone can verify it by putting Traditional Marriage in the WoW Search box.
You’re the worst scripture perverter on here, by far, Outkast.
I was asked on that thread to show various examples of God disapproving of polygamy, Night Train, and I was showing that throughout the Old Testament God blessed nations (and men) who put away polygamy, and cursed nations (and men) who embraced polygamy.
Out of contest, as an anti-Christian, you can make Scripture say whatever you want it to say. In context, however (in light of the entirety of God’s Holy Word) I was correct.
Even a general survey of the OT, Night Train, will show you that polygamy is rarely beneficial (look up the first Polygamist and see what kind of fellow he was). The OT ethic is harder to understand because, the Pentateuch aside, the OT Historians rarely editorialize about individual actions by the characters.
The NT provides the completion of the Biblical ethic, and Matthew 19:1-12 gives a thorough rejection of polygamy.
Outkast
I did read that thread but did not comment. I have to say its thin gruel to argue and really contentious and unnecessary to do so as DR points out the NT makes clear where scripture wanted to wind up. It puzzles me the need, at least it appears to be a need, to be contentious when it isn’t needed.
DR
Not sure I agree that OT writers did not editorialize — they just did it differently, by showing consequences of individual actions. Saul’s anger. David’s lust. Lack of faith from Abraham, Sarah and a host of others.
Roger (#74):
I disagree with your assessment of Joel’s points in #6 and #8. The Bradley article seeks to blame segments of the Christian community for Murray’s actions. Joel, in #6, says this condemnation is wrong, especially so soon after the incident when all the facts are not known. I agree.
However, the terrible actions of the killer himself are fair game for condemnation. What Murray did was wrong—period. No additional time or further investigation is needed to make that assessment. In criticizing the killer in #8 Joel is not doing what he decried in #6. Your point to that effect is incorrect.
In process of time it may come to light that Murray’s parents made mistakes. In fact, we can be sure that they did make mistakes—all parents do. No one is a perfect parent, just as no child is perfect. But now is not the time, in the midst of their anguish, to pile on to the parents, blaming them for the actions of their son. This is what Bradley shamefully did in his article.
For the parent’s sake, it would even be better not to publicly criticize the son so soon after the incident. However, in this age of instant communications, newscasts, op-eds, blogs, etc., that is just not possible. So, if we have to criticize anyone so soon after the fact, put the blame where it belongs, on the killer, not the parents or the church or homeschoolers. That was the point of post #8—the primary blame lies with the killer, no one else.
Later on, if we want to debate who else contributed to this situation, I’m sure there will be enough blame to go around on all sides—liberal, conservative, church, public education, the media, movies, video games, Republicans, Democrats, the NRA, the anti-gun lobby, etc., etc., etc.
BT, I beg to differ with your characterization of my posts. My “stance” remained consistent. You can freely agree or disagree.
#73, KIYOSHI,
In my observation, evangelicals do far far more to care for “the broken and the weak” (as you put it) than any other religious or non-religious group of which I am aware.
KIYOSHI wrote; “I can’t help but see [Cho and Murray] as part of God’s judgment against self-righteous image-obsessed American evangelicalism that drags the name of Christ through the muck.”
This sort of mean-spirited nonsense is what we must endure when we believe in free speech.
What Cho and Murray did viciously victimized particular innocent people (evangelical or not). You are just abusing a human tragedy to emote against “American evangelicalism.”
Michael Martin,
Your response (at #81) to Roger was excellent–as seasoned with grace as it was with reason. Thanks for taking the effort to read my posts with fair-minded understanding.
Roger, at #74, wrote about my motives; “It’s obvious to me that you were more concerned with how this story reflected on you personally than you were about the family or their grief.”
I don’t have the authority to speak for your motives or presumed concerns, Roger, but I do for mine.
You are dead wrong.
So speak for yourself, sir.
Thank you, CoyoteBlue, for yor wonderfully sensible suggestions made in a couple of posts above.
Don’t forget about the homeschooler who shot his girlfriend’s father last year.
Christians always talk a good talk about loving one another, but in the 27 years since I was born again, there are a great number of Christians who roam the churches looking to pick a fight and put others down over every little issue — doctrine, politics, facial hair, you name it.
Here’s an example — I was in college years ago studying science. I was told that “evolution is science and evolution is from Satan, therefore science is from Satan.” QED, end of discussion. There was peer pressure in that church to go to Bible school, period.
I backslid after a couple years of that sort of harping, and the only thing that salvaged me was finding good Christian friends with whom I could be open and honest.
Given all the strict peer pressure to conform, there arises a culture of phoniness in the church where many Christians are afraid to be open with their struggles, lest they be scorned. With this shooter, we see that he lost hope. Without knowing anything about him or his church, I’m not surprised that some people would lose hope in these situations.
Jay,with any group, one can easily find dogmatic and righteous people. I live in Massachusetts and find my share of them. My experience on this blog, however, has been that many evangelical Christians are reasonable and moderate with their views. One can, also, find interesting articles on the Evangelical Philosophical Society website.
None of us know what went wrong with Matthew Murray. To suggest, however, as Mr. Bradley does, that the evangelical sub-culture… seems to be producing a generation of angry, vengeful young men (and angry middle-aged blogging men)? is dubious.
Our general culture itself, seriously lacking traditional structures of caring authority, seems to be producing an extraordinary number of young people who live lives of despair that involves them in all sorts of destructive behavior.
All groups including evangelicals need to examine themselves and try to do better, thoughplease let’s not make a scapegoat of devout Christians as many folk on the left do.
JAYFROMCLEVELAND wrote; “Don’t forget about the homeschooler who shot his girlfriend’s father last year.”
Pray tell, why does that need to be remembered any more or less than any other senseless murder or attempted murder that we hear about daily in our media?
Are public school kids ever involved in public or school shootings?
JAYFROMCLEVELAND wrote; “Christians always talk a good talk about loving one another, but in the 27 years since I was born again, there are a great number of Christians who roam the churches looking to pick a fight and put others down over every little issue — doctrine, politics, facial hair, you name it.”
I recommend that you either move from your area or change your circle of churches. Seriously, a 27 year record like that is despicably unacceptable and very unChristian. By all means, find other circles in which to serve and worship God and fellowship with His children. While I have also seen those things happen in my lifetime, they have been done by a vast minority of Christians I have known.
And as for the guy who supposedly said, “evolution is science and evolution is from Satan, therefore scie