Shame on you Notre Dame

I am a huge Notre Dame fan. I did not attend the school, but I love Notre Dame Football. I have been a fan since I was 16 years old. In light of the recent tragic deaths of Lizzy Seeberg and Declan Sullivan, I would not allow either of my two children to attend Notre Dame unless significant changes were made.

 

With the tragic death of 19 year-old Lizzy Seeberg on September 10th, many have speculated that the University of Notre Dame "lawyered up" and put the football program ahead of what was morally right. Shortly thereafter, the university struggled to overcome the death of a student filmographer, Declan Sullivan who was killed in an October 27th accident in which the lift he was standing on while filming football practice toppled over in unsafe wind conditions. Are the two related and what conclusions can be drawn about the Notre Dame Football program?

In the case of Lizzy Seeberg, the victim was not a student of Notre Dame. She was a St. Mary’s College student who had accused a Notre Dame Football player of sexual abuse. Shortly after her police report, she was sent threatening text messages by a friend of the football player who stated, “Don’t mess with Notre Dame Football.” It appears that the stress from the situation caused her to take her own life, ten days after her report. In that time, none of the South Bend police or Notre Dame Administration had even begun to investigate the incident.

There are several very disturbing issues surrounding the Seeberg tragedy. First, the police did not investigate quickly, stating that their case load was heavy do to football season and increased underage drinking. They did not even interview the accused Notre Dame student until five days after Lizzy’s death. The university also did not publically issue statements or show any concern about the issue. It has been well documented that the Notre Dame student in question has a history of behavior issues. For example, his senior year in high school, after being recruited by Notre Dame, he was suspended from school for throwing a desk at a teacher after she took his cell phone away during class. Kids make mistakes, but certainly someone in the football program knew that if any behavior issues came up with this student, action would have to be taken swiftly.

Secondly, not once has the university reached out to the Seeberg family. In fact, the family was stonewalled by Notre Dame. The Seebergs were forced to hire an attorney to get any communication from the school administration and were told by the school’s general counsel, Marianne Coor, "I hope the Seebergs know how bad this could get for them'' if they ever went public. The Seebergs wrote a letter to Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins, who refused to read the letter, let alone meet with the Seebergs, on the advice of counsel. How horribly wrong and insensitive is that?

The Seeberg case was terribly mishandled by the university. They snubbed the Seeberg family’s requests and treated them as if the tragic death of their 19 year-old daughter was insignificant. It is clear the university was afraid of significant litigation brought against them for the behavior of the accused football player. If this situation was managed differently, with love and caring as directed by God’s word, the school may have been able to prevent the untimely and heartbreaking death of Lizzy Seeberg.

The Sullivan case is equally disturbing, on a similar managerial level. Wind gusts the day of Sullivan’s death were in excess of 50 mph. Sullivan himself tweeted twice:

3:22pm "Gusts of wind up to 60 mph. Well today will be fun at work. I guess I've lived long enough."

4:06pm "Holy (blank). Holy (blank). This is terrifying."

The last tweet was just minutes before the lift toppled and Sullivan was killed. It is tragic that this death most definitely could have been prevented. Many other universities have commented about the use of lifts for filming football practice. Policies address the use of lifts, which are to be abandoned if winds exceed 20-25 miles per hour. It seems obvious to many of us that whoever was in charge, whether it was Head Coach Brian Kelley or Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick, should have made the call to abandon the lifts well before practice. It is reasonable to assume that the university staff had a duty to analyze the situation and make that call. It is equally reasonable to assume that Sullivan, who was committed to his effort to be a part of the football program, did not act in his best interest by not seeking shelter from the high winds. However, that does not absolve the university from fault. Especially since practice the day before Sullivan’s death was held indoor due to high winds. Legal experts have predicted that compensatory and punitive penalties against the school could cost upwards of $30 million.

Notre Dame is not a small state public school. It is a private, well-funded and high profile Catholic university with a large student body and an active alumni. You would think that they would be sensitive to these issues. Faith alone should cause the administrators of the university to act with high moral values and compassion. It is clear in both of these cases that the school leadership has much work to do in this area and I consider their actions a complete moral failure. I pray that the university leadership takes these lessons to heart, prays and asks for forgiveness and makes the necessary changes in their attitudes to prevent similar tragedies in the future. If their course of action remains unchanged, they are going to have one less fan watching their football games and potentially two less students when my kids are of college age.

Compromise

Dictionary.com defines the word "compromise" as the following:

com·pro·mise (noun)
- a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

Let's break this down:
com-
a prefix meaning “with,” “together,” “in association,” and (with intensive force) “completely,” occurring in loanwords from Latin (commit): used in the formation of compound words before b, p, m: combine; compare; commingle.

Promise (noun)
a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc

verb (used with object)
to engage or undertake by promise (usually used with an infinitive or a clause as object)

Compromise has been thrown around a lot recently, in words like concession, joined in, and bipartisanship, especially when it relates to Congress' weekend repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. Congressmen who were originally against the repeal have been labeled as "moral compromisers" in recent political and religious criticisms from this past weekend's vote. In their defense, these elected representatives have labeled the policy "bad" or "inconsistent with society's views" or even that there is a "generational transition" taking place on the issue, meaning our society's moral stance has moved away from the moral principles of the policy. Societal norms may have changed, but in this author's dissertation, you will not find any support for sacrificing moral values because of the ever-shifting whim of an atheistic society. Rationalization and elevating human thought to the equivalence of God’s word is extremely dangerous.

In essence, the word "compromise" means that one could make a promise to uphold a certain belief, or in this case, a policy, and then break that promise for the greater good. The greater good is subjective; current societal norms are appalling and hardly a worthy basis to effect or change policy. What is even more appalling is that legislators feel that because a segment of the constituency shifts a certain way and puts pressure on them, they must react. In some cases, this is true. However, when it comes to upholding a standard that is morally sound and built on a foundation of biblical principles, there can never be a compromise. The Word of God cannot be marginalized or interpreted by human thought to adhere to a societal norm.

Society has continued to slowly lower moral standards. This probably isn't a shock to any reader of this essay. The negative response, even ridicule against those who strive to uphold biblical standards is growing from various atheist groups, political groups and even some Christian organizations. The enemy is succeeding. He is engaging in a terrible onslaught against self discipline and personal responsibility. Insecurity and other difficult and distressing emotions can be dealt with if your faith and trust in Jesus is strong. As the Bible says, we must clothe ourselves in Christ Jesus. Without Jesus, those emotions will turn into harmful behavior, which begins with allowing your mind, wrought with sinful thoughts, to discount moral standards.

Romans 13:14
"But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."

Ephesians 6:11
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil."

Many Christian churches have compromised in a number of ways to the detriment of our society's moral standards. Inevitably, church leaders and current Christian reformers, especially emergent churches, have developed conflicting opinions about traditional Christian morality. There is no excuse to compromise the Word of God. It is vital that churches continue to spread the Word of God to all mankind, however, by definition; emerging churches have altered their view of evangelical Christian morality and are engaging in heresy and false doctrine.

Emerging church leaders are very intelligent and are well-educated in both secular studies and Christian theology. They have a keen appreciation for societal evolution, especially in the recent past. They support their arguments with scriptural references and persuasive, thoughtful, well-written commentary. I refer to Scot McKnight's article called the "Five Streams of the Emerging Church" published in Christianity Today on January 19, 2007. This article is an excellent example of the dangers of compromise, new age thought and acceptance of societal norms. Professor McKnight is an intelligent and a skilled writer. He has written many articles and books on theology as well as critical reviews of emergent books and authors. However, he fails miserably to uphold the primary tenants of God’s Word, like many others in the emergent church movement. He downplays discernment in favor of conversation, discussion and intelligent human thought on the role of traditional Christian morality in today's society. God warns us on numerous occasions in the Bible about human believing that our own sinful thought is as important as the Word of God. God gave us the ability to discern. Judgment, in any situation, should not be subject to societal opinion, especially when it is in direct opposition of God’s Word.

Like many emergent themes, the emphasis is not the Word of God, but on a style of living where one tries to live in the "footsteps of Jesus." Right action or “good” behavior becomes the most important part of being a Christian. Credit is often not given to God or the Bible for the basis of this “right action.” One can easily be confused with the way McKnight explains the word praxis; "following Jesus," "acting like a Christian should act" or "how faith is lived out" and replacing it, or at minimum, elevating actions to an equivalent moral level with accepting Jesus Christ as one's Savior. If you read the entire McKnight article, not once does he refer to Christ as our Lord and Savior or the Son of God. Emergent leaders are consistent in their treatment of this issue, which fundamentally flawed and is deteriorating our moral belief system.

The other primary compromise in the emergent church movement is recognizing the moral shifts in society, i.e. the “postmodern” ideals of our society and accepting them as harmless. Instead of rejecting these whimsical trends, holding fast to the Word of God and preaching a higher moral standard, the emergent leaders intellectually deconstruct traditional evangelical Christian values in favor of acknowledging and even condoning immoral behavior. They theorize that society can dictate right behavior, with almost no reference to the moral foundation we, as Christians, should adhere to.

The reaction by our Congressmen to the repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is along these same theoretical lines. The postmodern Christian reaction will be of acceptance and support, because they believe, based on false doctrine and skewed data that the Christian moral standard regarding homosexuality is irrelevant. This action further contributes to the gradual acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal and not sinful. The political argument assumes that homosexuality has no measurable negative effect on society (or our military, in this example) and there are no negative health risks to homosexual behavior. Clearly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have other data.

· One in five homosexual males are infected with HIV
· Homosexual males have HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
· Infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in homosexual males than in the general population.
· Although homosexual males comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

The next step for the political softies that compromised on this issue is to discount the population of gays in the military. “It’s only 1 or 2 percent, so it is really not an issue.” One can rationalize all day long, but it does not morally support the action. In this author’s opinion, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was put into place to protect homosexuals serving in the military from deliberate abusive action by their fellow soldiers. There have been many recognized and well documented cases of violent behavior against homosexuals in society and in the military including near-death beatings and other horribly violent acts no human being should be subjected to, no matter their sexual preference.

The final analysis will prove that human thought and human nature is never superior to the Word of God. Peter warns us in his second epistle:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. (2 Peter 2: 1-3)

Also, Paul has perhaps the most profound instruction on this topic in his first letter to Timothy:

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1: 2-17)


These scriptures completely dissolve the emergent church belief that we can never really know the actual truth because we haven’t physically experienced it for ourselves. It also devastates another emergent tenant that the truth of the Word is beyond our comprehension, so it is our job, as humans, to interpret it the best we can. Paul emphasized that knowing the law and understanding our moral foundation given to us by God is by faith. Emergent leaders again discount what is clearly written in the Word and routinely speculate that what is written in the Bible is either not applicable to today’s society, it is outdated and stale or it is incomprehensible, so why even try?

Discernment is of utmost importance. God gave us the tools to be discerning. We cannot allow modern societal norms to influence truth. It is obvious emergent churches are allowing commonly accepted societal norms into their beliefs; even promoting them to some degree, in order to reach out to all kinds of people. Their messages should be about promoting the body of Christ through each individual’s personal relationship with Jesus. Perhaps the origin of this movement can be attributed to new age movement of the 1980’s. There was a realization by emergent leaders that there was a growing market for new and different “new age” messages in today’s society and they have taken advantage of it. Through their publications and church-planting activities, the financial rewards are significant.

Emergent churches have accepted homosexuality and other very damaging behaviors like abortion and pre-marital sex. In questioning biblical truth, they have even incomprehensibly questioned Jesus’ sacrifice as our gift of salvation! It is absolutely unfathomable that they promote such blatant heresy and call themselves Christians in absolute opposition to the truth. They should be promoting the highest of high standards given to us in the Word of God, demanding accountability and coaching the body to strive with all their hearts and minds to achieve that standard, instead of attempting to marginalize the truth and bring it down to a societal level.

There is significantly more damage done to the body of Christ by reducing the truth to make people feel good. Our willing media, which is filled with atheism, routinely tears Christianity down and twists Biblical truth into racism, sexism, bigotry, elitism and rejects the equality of traditional roles. Biblical truth and the standard by which it is a guide for our lives is amazingly liberating, for both sexes, and provides for both a tangible human reward and the ultimate reward in Heaven.

Traditional, straight forward Biblical truth is easy to understand, but difficult to live up to. It has never been easy to be a Christian. It requires admission and repentance of sin, forgiveness, dedication to the Word and personal responsibility and acceptance of God's moral standard. Daunting is an understatement, but faith is infinitely and ultimately renumerated in Heaven.

The laws of the United States should also be held to the highest of moral standards. Compromise should be out of the question when it comes to holding the behavior of our society to the standard given to us by God with His perfect intentions. God would not have given us such a thorough framework if he felt that it was necessary or even a human's place to interpret the Word in a way our limited brain can comprehend. Giving in, compromising and generally allowing our sinful thought to pervert the teachings of the Son of God is heresy. Jesus is the foundation of all things. Believe in Jesus, take the Word of God as the ultimate authority, reject anything that compromises your moral foundation and recognize that it is false doctrine. God gave us the ability to discern so that we may protect ourselves from the evils of compromise.