Micah Armstrong preaching in front of the student union in Oxford, Miss., Wednesday, April 1, 2015. (DM Photo | Kayla Beatty)
A Response to “In Regards to Michael Armstrong”
To begin, I would like to explain how unqualified I am to write this letter. I am not a Young Life leader or a singer at Campus Crusades; truthfully, there have been times in my life where I was not even a regular church-goer and completely disregarded the Christian religion. I have many questions about the scriptures and am by no means an expert on the topic. I am not writing this to be placed on a pedestal; I make mistakes every day. The only thing I can say is that through my life and my own observations I have concluded that Christianity is the only way for me. I come humbly with an argument to Holly Baer’s column, “In Regards to Micah Armstrong, ” not to attack Baer, but to provide clarity.
I do not agree with the way Armstrong acted in front of the Union. I was less upset about his actions, however, than I was about the misrepresentation of the Christian religion that can be observed in Baer’s column.
To begin, I would like to place the scriptures Baer mentioned into context. Baer uses only verses from the Old Testament and then makes the argument that “Christians quickly shout, ‘Oh, that’s the Old Testament!’’’ There is a reason for this. To be well-educated on these scriptures, it is necessary to consider the intention in which they were written relative to the time period.
Baer uses Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, and 1 Corinthians 11:14 in her argument to prove that some of the teachings of the Old Testament are obsolete now in modern society. This is true. These verses that concern dress were written around 1400 BC. The Old Testament is filled with teachings from the “Old Law,” which is defined as the “compilation of decrees found in the first five books of the Bible” (biblica.com). In this time, it was believed that an obedience of commandments was the only way to God.
However, one important reason for Jesus’ coming was to abolish this “Old Law.” The laws were in place to repay a debt that God’s people had in regards to their sin (the “Old Law” also included animal sacrifice). After Christ’s coming, this debt was repaid in full. Isaiah 53:5 says, “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.” Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice through His death. Because of His death, no further sacrifices were needed, and many of the “Old Laws” were abolished.
The scriptures in the Old Testament regarding dress were part of the “Old Law.” Baer includes Deuteronomy 22:5, which states, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing” and interprets it to mean that women cannot wear pants, as they were traditionally worn by men. It is true that in that time period, only men wore pants. Now, both sexes do and it is in no way considered cross-dressing. It is important to take into regard the context behind these verses.
As far as sex outside of marriage being immoral, as well as drunkenness and homosexuality, these were not really aspects of the “Old Law” but simply God’s teachings. Whether or not you choose to live by God’s teachings is up to the individual.
Not everyone has sex. Not everyone drinks. (Furthermore, God does not condemn drinking, but empty drunkenness—Ephesians 5:18.) To assume that because we live in a modern society everyone practices these activities is disregarding a large portion of the population.
The most egregious error that Baer makes is her use of Matthew 18:15 as evidence for her argument that Armstrong’s method was “correct under the teachings of Christianity.” Matthew 18:15 states, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.” This verse is meant to instruct one Christian to bring to his fellow Christian’s attention when he is doing consistent wrong, as doing consistent wrong detracts from the Christian’s mission: spreading the gospel. It is meant to be constructive criticism between only two people, given out of love.
A “hellfire and brimstone” method, as Armstrong displayed, was never Jesus’ way of teaching. If we examine the Bible, we actually see the opposite: Jesus spent his time with people who were otherwise shunned from society, including prostitutes (Luke 7:36-50) and tax collectors (Mark 2:13-17). Jesus’ goal was to offer hope to people who lived with shame and guilt, not scare them into becoming a Christian, as Armstrong did.
Lastly, Baer uses Timothy 2:15 to make Christianity look old-fashioned by interpreting it to mean that a woman can only be saved through childbirth. Timothy 2:15 states,” But she shall be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” This verse may be interpreted in many ways, (visit carm.org for further explanation) but most importantly, this verse is not actually referencing salvation. John 14:6 states, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This explains to Christians that, again, the only way to receive salvation is through the acceptance of Jesus Christ. To interpret Timothy 2:15 to mean that women cannot receive salvation unless they have kids is inaccurate, as Jesus gives individual women great praise for their faith throughout the Bible; He was also unconventionally sensitive to the social and religious handicaps that women faced (see more at enrichmentjournal.org).
While my opinion may be unpopular, I could not let such a misrepresentation of scripture go unquestioned. I have never had a problem with the beliefs of those different from my own (I have friends from all walks of life). Some people that know me could even call out the many sins I’ve committed, and they would be absolutely right. But in making an intelligent argument, it is absolutely essential to thoroughly analyze and research both sides. Completely disregarding the New Testament and its teachings makes many points in the column futile. In science, it is learned that personal bias or assumptions should never get in the way of examination or observation, and the same holds true for all walks of life.
Miller Hollingsworth
Senior IMC Major
Brandon, MS
