Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Jumping off the Blue Bridge
My beloved home town, Cumberland, MD, is a stone's throw away from West Virginia. In fact, a short walk across the Blue Bridge near downtown Cumberland will take you into not only the neighboring town of Ridgley, but also the next state. When I was a kid, my family used to cross the Blue Bridge all the time when we went to the Ridgley Dairy Queen; it's a familiar landmark of the city, and I saw it or traveled on it hundreds of times in the 20 years I lived there.
One of the bridge's striking features is a set of particularly nasty looking spikes near the bottom of each arch, designed to keep would-be climbers and jumpers away (you can see them in this large image of the bridge). The spikes looked extraordinarily sharp and threatening to me as a kid, so I always assumed that nobody would be crazy enough risk getting impaled by climbing on or jumping from the Blue Bridge.
So, you can imagine my shock at seeing two YouTube videos showing crazy people jumping from the Blue Bridge into the Potomac. I sat with my mouth agape as I watched these. People from other localities won't find these videos as surprising or interesting, but if you're familiar with the Cumberland area, you gotta see them.
Warning: The second one contains multiple expletives (why do people need to swear?).
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
My beloved home town, Cumberland, MD, is a stone's throw away from West Virginia. In fact, a short walk across the Blue Bridge near downtown Cumberland will take you into not only the neighboring town of Ridgley, but also the next state. When I was a kid, my family used to cross the Blue Bridge all the time when we went to the Ridgley Dairy Queen; it's a familiar landmark of the city, and I saw it or traveled on it hundreds of times in the 20 years I lived there.
One of the bridge's striking features is a set of particularly nasty looking spikes near the bottom of each arch, designed to keep would-be climbers and jumpers away (you can see them in this large image of the bridge). The spikes looked extraordinarily sharp and threatening to me as a kid, so I always assumed that nobody would be crazy enough risk getting impaled by climbing on or jumping from the Blue Bridge.
So, you can imagine my shock at seeing two YouTube videos showing crazy people jumping from the Blue Bridge into the Potomac. I sat with my mouth agape as I watched these. People from other localities won't find these videos as surprising or interesting, but if you're familiar with the Cumberland area, you gotta see them.
Warning: The second one contains multiple expletives (why do people need to swear?).
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Blue Bridge, Cumberland
Friday, December 15, 2006
In defense of Cumberland (again)
Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal first broke in 2004, I was horrified to learn that the reservists who had engaged in the tawdry, sadistic behavior captured in those now infamous photos were part of a unit that is stationed near my beloved hometown, Cumberland, MD.
As the rest of the world learned this, they began to wonder, "What is it about Cumberland that would breed such perverse, twisted, abusive soldiers?" Then, reporters from the rest of the world flocked to Cumberland to investigate, convinced that the barbarism of a handful of reservists would be clearly reflected in the community at large.
I wrote a blog post in May of that year as a rebuttal to such ridiculous, ill-formed generalizations. It's an unfortunate truth of life that it only takes a few bad eggs to besmirch the reputation of many. As axiomatic as that is, I had hoped that intelligent journalists would find a way to paint a balanced picture of the city I was born and grew up in. I was wrong then, and the media continues to prove me wrong.
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a report on Joe Darby, the reservist who accidentally uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib and blew the whistle on them. Joe had been a resident of the Cumberland area; when the time came for him to return home from Iraq, the Army told him it was simply too dangerous to go back to Cumberland. A security assessment conducted by the Army showed that resentment toward Darby for his role in exposing the scandal was so intense that it represented a genuine threat to his life.
Understand, friends, that I do not doubt the Army's conclusions about the danger posed to Darby and his family. Nor do I dispute Anderson Cooper's right to report it. But I strenuously object to the scurrilous manner in which Cooper and CBS suggested that the entire city of Cumberland was united in monolithic, snarling hatred for Joe Darby and his actions.
The report's inaccuracies:
The drumbeat of media bias rolls on. Cumberland is just one of its latest victims.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal first broke in 2004, I was horrified to learn that the reservists who had engaged in the tawdry, sadistic behavior captured in those now infamous photos were part of a unit that is stationed near my beloved hometown, Cumberland, MD.
As the rest of the world learned this, they began to wonder, "What is it about Cumberland that would breed such perverse, twisted, abusive soldiers?" Then, reporters from the rest of the world flocked to Cumberland to investigate, convinced that the barbarism of a handful of reservists would be clearly reflected in the community at large.
I wrote a blog post in May of that year as a rebuttal to such ridiculous, ill-formed generalizations. It's an unfortunate truth of life that it only takes a few bad eggs to besmirch the reputation of many. As axiomatic as that is, I had hoped that intelligent journalists would find a way to paint a balanced picture of the city I was born and grew up in. I was wrong then, and the media continues to prove me wrong.
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a report on Joe Darby, the reservist who accidentally uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib and blew the whistle on them. Joe had been a resident of the Cumberland area; when the time came for him to return home from Iraq, the Army told him it was simply too dangerous to go back to Cumberland. A security assessment conducted by the Army showed that resentment toward Darby for his role in exposing the scandal was so intense that it represented a genuine threat to his life.
Understand, friends, that I do not doubt the Army's conclusions about the danger posed to Darby and his family. Nor do I dispute Anderson Cooper's right to report it. But I strenuously object to the scurrilous manner in which Cooper and CBS suggested that the entire city of Cumberland was united in monolithic, snarling hatred for Joe Darby and his actions.
The report's inaccuracies:
- Anderson Cooper referred to Cumberland as "a military town" in the report, which is a gross mischaracterization. I currently live in Virginia Beach, which is home to the Oceana Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach is part of the broader Tidewater area, where the Navy has a significant presence with at least two bases. Navy battle groups are stationed here, and their vessels are repaired in local shipyards. This, friends, is a military town. From what I've read, Cumberland is home to a small reserve unit of around 250 soldiers and a tiny VFW post. That is not a military town. Besides, I grew up there. I lived there for over twenty years. Not once did I ever hear someone refer to Cumberland as "a military town." But painting it that way may have served the intended rhetorical bent of Cooper's piece. Cumberland was neatly transformed into an ideological foil -- a fabricated example of "a military town" whose sympathies were with criminals rather than a courageous whistle-blower. This calumniates the very mindset of the armed forces, suggesting that Abu Ghraib was the natural outflow of our military's character and surrounding culture. Such assertions are not without precedent. Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently stated that the American military has never been more murderous or wantonly destructive as it has been in Iraq. I have no doubt that many in the mainstream media are sympathetic to his view. I wonder where Mr. Cooper stands? Or is his apparent hit-piece on Cumberland indicative of some agreement with Hersh's vitriolic and unfounded prejudice against the military?
- In any case, identifying Cumberland as a military town laid the groundwork for Cooper's report to move from the particular to the general in an unwarranted fashion by extrapolating the views of some Cumberland residents to all of them. At about five and a half minutes into the report, Cooper describes Cumberland as "a military town that felt Darby had betrayed his fellow soldiers." Cooper explicitly states here that the entire city was collectively and uniformly hostile to Darby. Not once during the 11-minute piece did Cooper interview a Cumberland resident who supported Darby or applauded his actions. This, I presume, was to suggest such people don't exist in Cumberland, but they incontrovertibly do. Mere logic indicates that this would be the case, but a simple visit to the editorial page of the Cumberland Times-News or a Cumberland message board confirms it. I cannot fathom why Mr. Cooper, a supposedly accomplished journalist, failed to do this.
The drumbeat of media bias rolls on. Cumberland is just one of its latest victims.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Abu Ghraib, Cumberland, Joe Darby, media bias, politics
Monday, May 10, 2004
In defense of Cumberland
By now, we've all seen the photos. The world has seen them.
Naked Iraqi prisoners, cruelly dragged along the ground by a dog leash or forced into degrading positions simulating sex acts -- all for the sport and amusement of a handful of depraved men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military.
Beyond seeing, we've all felt the burning shame and anger these photographs elicit. And we should. We are Americans. We're better than this.
I have the deepest respect for those who serve in the armed forces. They are disciplined, well-trained, freedom-loving, and -- far more often than not -- honorable. Their willful service and sacrifice are the guarantors of the rights and privileges we all enjoy as U.S. citizens. For that, they have my sincere gratitude, heartfelt appreciation, and steadfast support.
But recent events have brought another facet of the military's importance to light. The goulish images emanating from the Abu Ghraib prison demonstrate that the men and women of our military are far more than our protectors. They are also representatives and ambassadors of American civilization. Perhaps more than any other societal indicator, our conduct in war speaks volumes about the quality of our culture. In a speech given a few years ago by Alan Keyes, he observed how remarkable it is that we only used the atom bomb twice in World War II. Some decry the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as consummate expressions of American barbarism. Consider, however, that we were the first to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. No other nation possessed such powerful technology. Had chosen to do so, we could have held the world hostage: Either join the new global American empire or face annihilation.
But we didn't, because we're better than that. It was enough for us to procure Japan's unconditional surrender and put an end to the most destructive conflict the world has ever known.
The projection of American force must always be tempered by the exercise of American restraint; the locus of such restraint resides in the underlying Judeo-Christian values that are so foundational to the success and greatness of our nation. An extreme minority of American men and women chose to depart from those values in a crucial time and region where the cynical, scrutinizing eyes of the entire world are focused. Unfortunately, it takes only a little foolishness to undo much wisdom (see Ecclesiastes 10:1). This is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole scandal. The liberation of an oppressed people, the honorable conduct of the majority our armed forces, and the good and upright values the American public holds are all overshadowed in the court of public opinion by the wicked deeds of a select few.
Imagine, therefore, my personal consternation when the world learned that some of the soldiers who perpetrated the abuse at Abu Ghraib came from a batallion of reservists stationed in a suburb of my home town, Cumberland, MD.
In response to this news, a huge cadre of reporters from all over the planet descended upon sleepy little Cumberland (see photo at right), interviewing local yokels to get reaction to the news coming out of Abu Ghraib -- and to find out what it is about Cumberland that would produce the military "monsters" everybody now loves to hate. Many of the reporters apparently proceeded from an assumption of guilt by association; if soldiers from Cumberland behaved so despicably, then Cumberland and its citizens must be despicable as well.
Given the axiom from Ecclesiastes I cited above, I can understand that kind of reaction. Even so, is it really all that difficult to realize that every group of people -- whether a community, a nation, or a military -- is going to have a few bad eggs in it? (HINT: The preceding sentence is a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer.)
When I was a senior at Allegany High School in Cumberland, I took a guitar class. It was one of those blow-off classes we've all had on occasion -- half the time the teacher left us to our own devices. One of the members of the guitar class was a Japanese exchange student. She was almost universally well-liked. Her petite frame, kind face, and polite meekness were endearing. She was also a very good pianist, and on those days when our guitar class ended up being a study hall, she could usually be found banging away at an upright piano that sat at the front of the room. Eventually, the tasteful stream of Bach inventions and Clementi sonatas just got to be too much for some of the yahoos in our class. To my horror, one of them taped a profanity-laden sign to the piano while the exchange student was performing. This quiet, kindhearted girl was a guest in our school, our community, and our country. I felt that all of us were duty-bound to put our best foot forward -- both for her benefit and our own. So, before she had a chance to see the boorish epithets on the sign, I ripped it off the piano and threw it in the trash. Then I asked her as gently as I knew how to take a rest from tickling the ivories. I'll never forget the look she gave me; it was as if I had kicked a puppy. I can't imagine her reaction if she had actually seen the sign.
Believe it or not, there is a point to this story that relates to the Abu Ghraib scandal. It would be positively absurd to assert that my entire high school was racist or anti-Japanese because a few students in my guitar class mistreated a Japanese exchange student. In the same way, the mistreatment of some Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Cumberland natives doesn't make Cumberland (or America) a wholesale incubator for barbarians.
Observers of the Abu Ghraib scandal ought to be able to make a distinction between the errant actions of a few and the values and policies of an entire people. It's a very simple distinction to make, as my guitar class story illustrates. When members of the press, leaders of nations, and terrorists alike fail to make this distinction, I can only conclude that they have chosen not to do so out of political or ideological expedience -- a fact which highlights their own willful ignorance and prejudice vis-a-vis the U.S., not to mention their hypocrisy.
Go ahead. Hold us to standards you are unwilling to live by yourselves. We're used to it. We're Americans.
By now, we've all seen the photos. The world has seen them.
Naked Iraqi prisoners, cruelly dragged along the ground by a dog leash or forced into degrading positions simulating sex acts -- all for the sport and amusement of a handful of depraved men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military.
Beyond seeing, we've all felt the burning shame and anger these photographs elicit. And we should. We are Americans. We're better than this.
I have the deepest respect for those who serve in the armed forces. They are disciplined, well-trained, freedom-loving, and -- far more often than not -- honorable. Their willful service and sacrifice are the guarantors of the rights and privileges we all enjoy as U.S. citizens. For that, they have my sincere gratitude, heartfelt appreciation, and steadfast support.
But recent events have brought another facet of the military's importance to light. The goulish images emanating from the Abu Ghraib prison demonstrate that the men and women of our military are far more than our protectors. They are also representatives and ambassadors of American civilization. Perhaps more than any other societal indicator, our conduct in war speaks volumes about the quality of our culture. In a speech given a few years ago by Alan Keyes, he observed how remarkable it is that we only used the atom bomb twice in World War II. Some decry the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as consummate expressions of American barbarism. Consider, however, that we were the first to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. No other nation possessed such powerful technology. Had chosen to do so, we could have held the world hostage: Either join the new global American empire or face annihilation.
But we didn't, because we're better than that. It was enough for us to procure Japan's unconditional surrender and put an end to the most destructive conflict the world has ever known.
The projection of American force must always be tempered by the exercise of American restraint; the locus of such restraint resides in the underlying Judeo-Christian values that are so foundational to the success and greatness of our nation. An extreme minority of American men and women chose to depart from those values in a crucial time and region where the cynical, scrutinizing eyes of the entire world are focused. Unfortunately, it takes only a little foolishness to undo much wisdom (see Ecclesiastes 10:1). This is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole scandal. The liberation of an oppressed people, the honorable conduct of the majority our armed forces, and the good and upright values the American public holds are all overshadowed in the court of public opinion by the wicked deeds of a select few.
Imagine, therefore, my personal consternation when the world learned that some of the soldiers who perpetrated the abuse at Abu Ghraib came from a batallion of reservists stationed in a suburb of my home town, Cumberland, MD.
In response to this news, a huge cadre of reporters from all over the planet descended upon sleepy little Cumberland (see photo at right), interviewing local yokels to get reaction to the news coming out of Abu Ghraib -- and to find out what it is about Cumberland that would produce the military "monsters" everybody now loves to hate. Many of the reporters apparently proceeded from an assumption of guilt by association; if soldiers from Cumberland behaved so despicably, then Cumberland and its citizens must be despicable as well.Given the axiom from Ecclesiastes I cited above, I can understand that kind of reaction. Even so, is it really all that difficult to realize that every group of people -- whether a community, a nation, or a military -- is going to have a few bad eggs in it? (HINT: The preceding sentence is a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer.)
When I was a senior at Allegany High School in Cumberland, I took a guitar class. It was one of those blow-off classes we've all had on occasion -- half the time the teacher left us to our own devices. One of the members of the guitar class was a Japanese exchange student. She was almost universally well-liked. Her petite frame, kind face, and polite meekness were endearing. She was also a very good pianist, and on those days when our guitar class ended up being a study hall, she could usually be found banging away at an upright piano that sat at the front of the room. Eventually, the tasteful stream of Bach inventions and Clementi sonatas just got to be too much for some of the yahoos in our class. To my horror, one of them taped a profanity-laden sign to the piano while the exchange student was performing. This quiet, kindhearted girl was a guest in our school, our community, and our country. I felt that all of us were duty-bound to put our best foot forward -- both for her benefit and our own. So, before she had a chance to see the boorish epithets on the sign, I ripped it off the piano and threw it in the trash. Then I asked her as gently as I knew how to take a rest from tickling the ivories. I'll never forget the look she gave me; it was as if I had kicked a puppy. I can't imagine her reaction if she had actually seen the sign.
Believe it or not, there is a point to this story that relates to the Abu Ghraib scandal. It would be positively absurd to assert that my entire high school was racist or anti-Japanese because a few students in my guitar class mistreated a Japanese exchange student. In the same way, the mistreatment of some Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Cumberland natives doesn't make Cumberland (or America) a wholesale incubator for barbarians.
Observers of the Abu Ghraib scandal ought to be able to make a distinction between the errant actions of a few and the values and policies of an entire people. It's a very simple distinction to make, as my guitar class story illustrates. When members of the press, leaders of nations, and terrorists alike fail to make this distinction, I can only conclude that they have chosen not to do so out of political or ideological expedience -- a fact which highlights their own willful ignorance and prejudice vis-a-vis the U.S., not to mention their hypocrisy.
Go ahead. Hold us to standards you are unwilling to live by yourselves. We're used to it. We're Americans.
Labels: Abu Ghraib, Cumberland, media bias, politics
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Rebuttal to Father Morley
Father Rick Morley is to be congratulated. Despite the controversial subject matter of his September 5th letter to the editor ("As With Slavery, Time May Soften Views Against Gay Bishop"), it was both thoughtful in its presentation and irenic in its tone. Fr. Morley's exhortation to "debate the issue of homosexuality and biblical morality" in humility and with "the fear of God" is well taken. Such matters are too important to fall prey to the propagandistic hysteria that exists on both sides of the issue.
While I applaud the spirit of Fr. Morley's letter, I find his analogy between past Christian thought on slavery and modern Christian thought on homosexuality to be fallacious. His argument is basically this:
The problem with this logic occurs on two levels:
I respect Fr. Morley's overarching premise: Just because someone reasons from Scripture, it doesn't make them right. Pro-slavery Christians are a case-in-point example, and Fr. Morley is right to point this out. Nevertheless, his homosexuality analogy breaks down because some who reasoned from Scripture were right on the issue of slavery. If we are correct to reason from Scripture that homosexuality is vice rather than virtue (and I believe the biblical data bear out that we are--but that'll have to wait for another article!) then Fr. Morley's appeal to the passage of time as a "softener" of such views is 1) misguided, and 2) more analogous to Christians who supported slavery than those who opposed it.
1. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 397-398.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Father Rick Morley is to be congratulated. Despite the controversial subject matter of his September 5th letter to the editor ("As With Slavery, Time May Soften Views Against Gay Bishop"), it was both thoughtful in its presentation and irenic in its tone. Fr. Morley's exhortation to "debate the issue of homosexuality and biblical morality" in humility and with "the fear of God" is well taken. Such matters are too important to fall prey to the propagandistic hysteria that exists on both sides of the issue.
While I applaud the spirit of Fr. Morley's letter, I find his analogy between past Christian thought on slavery and modern Christian thought on homosexuality to be fallacious. His argument is basically this:
- Many people of faith once asserted that the American institution of slavery was sanctioned by the teachings of Scripture. This theological grid prompted such people to denounce the Emancipation Proclamation as unbiblical twaddle.
- With time, these segments of American Christianity came to recognize that the Bible could never be construed to countenance the injustice and cruelty of slavery.
- Today, a number of Christians assert that homosexuality should not be embraced and celebrated as normal, healthy human behavior. Their reasoning (similar to their 19th-century counterparts who supported slavery) is based on Scripture. Just as some Christians once rejected the emancipation of slaves on supposedly scriptural reasons, many Christians today reject the ordination of a gay bishop on the same grounds.
- The passage of time may have the same effect on the thinking of modern Christians with respect to homosexuality as it did on 19th-century Christians who were pro-slavery. To wit, biblical sanction of homosexuality may eventually (and rightly?) become the predominant viewpoint within Christendom.
The problem with this logic occurs on two levels:
- Fr. Morley is correct in his assertion that many Christians erroneously believed slavery to be biblically licit. But his emphasis on this fact belies the largely Christian underpinnings of abolitionism in the northern regions of the country.
Thomas Weld, who became a Christian under the preaching of 19th century revivalist Charles Finney, was among the first abolitionists to paint the struggle against slavery as a struggle against sin.1 The Christian community in the North followed suit, and soon pro-slavery pulpiteers in the South had to contend with stinging biblical retorts from their abolitionist counterparts.2 The Golden Rule was the linchpin of Christian abolitionist thought.3 "Treat others," Jesus taught, "in the same way that you wish to be treated." On this basis, abolitionists posed a poignant and damning question: How many southern slaveholders would willingly trade places with their slaves for even one day?4
Armed with this potent argument, abolitionists proceeded to build a cumulative scriptural case against slavery:How, too, would slaveholders answer Exodus 21:16, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death"? Or Proverbs 22:22, 23, "Rob not the poor...for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them"? And Jeremiah 22:13, "Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work"? And in the New Testament, James 5:4, "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabbaoth."5
Fr. Morley has omitted a significant part of church history from his analogy. Yes, some Christians did justify slavery with the Bible; but plenty of other Christians who also reasoned from the Bible arrived at the opposite (and correct) conclusion. This brings us to the second problem with Fr. Morley's logic. - His analogy does not even attempt to grapple with the inherent veracity or falsehood of either perspective on homosexuality. Note the unfounded assumptions that are implicit in his analogy:
- Those who opposed the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (an incorrect position) are analogous to those who now oppose homosexuality on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is false.
- Those who supported the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (a correct position) are analogous to those who now sanction homosexuality as acceptable on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is correct.
This is the more egregious of Fr. Morley's errors. I have no doubt that he would agree when I say that the right side won the argument on slavery -- he undeniably implies this in his letter. In doing so, however, he admits something important: one of the camps on slavery was objectively and irrevocably wrong. The falsehood of their position was (and is) independent of the passage of time. It was wholly incorrect from its inception, regardless of the temporal nature of the opinions or feelings of those who espoused it.
The same possibility exists for either position on homosexuality--one objectively adheres to ultimate reality, the other does not. In portions of his letter, Fr. Morley seems to be open to the possibility that those who decry homosexuality might have the correct position. His analogy, however, presumes that this view is incorrect. - Those who opposed the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (an incorrect position) are analogous to those who now oppose homosexuality on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is false.
I respect Fr. Morley's overarching premise: Just because someone reasons from Scripture, it doesn't make them right. Pro-slavery Christians are a case-in-point example, and Fr. Morley is right to point this out. Nevertheless, his homosexuality analogy breaks down because some who reasoned from Scripture were right on the issue of slavery. If we are correct to reason from Scripture that homosexuality is vice rather than virtue (and I believe the biblical data bear out that we are--but that'll have to wait for another article!) then Fr. Morley's appeal to the passage of time as a "softener" of such views is 1) misguided, and 2) more analogous to Christians who supported slavery than those who opposed it.
1. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 397-398.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Labels: Christianity, Cumberland, homosexuality, moral relativism, politics
