"Gay" Tour of Christian Colleges

Judy Warner sends this link to a Washington Post story about the pro-gay tour targeting Christian campuses, in this case Patrick Henry College. I know that we have Touchstone readers among the students at that college and some of our editors have met some of them. The "gay" push is simply intolerant of anything other than approval of what they do. I believe something like this "tour" was conducted last year as well.

Comments

[Ethan Cordray]

It was conducted last year, and it came to Wheaton. I think we handled it very well, generally absorbing the momentum of their drive by giving them an open forum and a fair opportunity to present their views. If they were after confrontation, they didn't get it. At the same time, the school did not budge from its institutional stance against homosexuality, and I doubt they changed very many minds.

All in all, it was a fairly valuable opportunity to see how feeble their organizers' arguments were compared with those of the theologians and scholars who responded to them. the students were about what you'd expect, and I think we treated with them with all appropriate kindness.

[Bill R]

"...I think we treated with them with all appropriate kindness."

No doubt you did, Ethan. If they're really courageous, they should hit up the military academies this year. ;-)

[Ethan Cordray]

Bill, I believe they did that very thing last year. Courage is not a virtue they lack.

Like any new self-styled civil rights movement, they appeared to be actively seeking confrontation. Nothing like being shouted at and abused to convince one that one's cause is both just and terribly important.

[Bill R]

"Courage is not a virtue they lack."

Chutzpah, Ethan, is not the same as courage. Nor is it necessarily a virtue.

[Juli]

If they're really courageous, they should hit up the military academies this year. ;-)

Chutzpah, Ethan, is not the same as courage.

You were the one who implied that visiting the military academies would take courage. The smilie suggested that you were amused by the prospect of a less kindly reception there, but maybe not.

Speaking of courage, these visits must be challenging for closeted gay students (or faculty?). Quoting from the article:
Soulforce visits often bring gay students and alumni out of hiding, and this was no exception. Three alumni contacted Reynolds during the visit; she said one told her he was gay and that his time at Patrick Henry had been the "hardest four years of his life."

[Scott Walker]

They were here in Oregon a couple of weeks ago, and received the same treatment at George Fox that they did at Wheaton. I'm sure they were somewhat disappointed about that. But they did manage to get arrested at BYU, which will become an issue in the Romney campaign.

[Bill R]

"You were the one who implied that visiting the military academies would take courage."

Got me, Juli! :) My point, however, was that the mere willingness to do something difficult and distasteful is not the virtue of courage, however much we may use the word "courageous" to describe it. When we denote courage as a virtue, we mean the willingness to endure difficulties for a good end. I'll grant that some of these folks imagine that what they are doing furthers a "good" end, but then I'd question whether they are honest in their assessment of what is "good." Fair enough?

[GL]

To SMH's last post, I say, "Amen."

[smh]

Whether a Christian organization should give sodomites a forum for expressing their views faced the mainline Protestant denominations during that last several generations. Generally it was decided that they should be granted a place on the floor--the status (in whatever form this took) to address their people, year after year.

There are arguments having the appearance of wisdom for handling this the way these denominations and Wheaton College did, but I think it better to take the road less traveled: to refuse them entrance, at least on their own terms. We know what they will say, and what their object in saying it is; they know what we will say in return, and why. The matter they wish to negotiate is unnegotiable as long as the institution remains Christian, and there is no good reason why they should, in the meanwhile, be given permission to trouble our people.

I was reading the other day the complaint of a liberal Catholic that his church had declared debate closed on a number of issues that he thought should remain open. But that closure, I thought, reflected the understanding that there are some matters which, after a certain period of discussion, should be ruled upon and closed, and others that do not deserve to be heard at all. One can hardly think of a better example of the second category than the assertion that homosexuality has a place among Christians.

[smh]

(Thanks and apologies to GL, whose commendation got moved to before rather than after the post to which he was responding. My fault.)

[Quena Gonzalez]

In light of SMH's observation, that the question of granting homosexual activists a hearing on their own terms has faced church institutions before, I wonder if different institutions bear different responsibilities. Perhaps the Church bears greater responsibility than private Christian institutions to safeguard doctrine.

It is at least interesting to contrast the decision by Wheaton, which is private and interdenominational, with that of Covenant College, which governed by the Presbyterian Church in America.

As Wheaton's Provost explained, "We believe it is better to engage the Soulforce protestors openly, using their visit as an opportunity to educate our students about the challenge to the teachings of the Bible and the Church in this area, preparing them to uphold biblical truth as they face this issue in their churches in the years to come." A quick search of Wheaton's web site turned up several paragraphs about how this dual focus was pursued (see the bottom of the 9th page):

http://www.wheaton.edu/alumni/magazine/wm_spring_06.pdf#page=9

Perhaps a Wheaton alumnus can provide a better link.

By contrast, Covenant’s leadership offered to dialog within a well-defined agreement, which was rejected. They then asked the Equality Riders not to trespass on the campus. Their reasoning ran thusly (please forgive the long quote):

"The Ride’s stated mission is to challenge Covenant’s biblical view of sexuality and policies on sexual behavior, which they view as oppressive and discriminatory. This explicit goal makes it very clear that they are not interested in genuine dialogue, but rather are missionally committed to changing Covenant from its foundations up. The Riders are indeed on a mission trip: they raise their support and are devoting their time to public action to force, if they could, their views on institutions like Covenant.

"Given this explicit focus on basic biblical views and college policies, and while we are not willing to set aside either our biblical convictions or our policies on sexuality and sexual morality, we nevertheless made a good faith offer of several opportunities for the Riders to meet on campus with students, faculty, and administrators to discuss these matters. Because we were not willing to permit the Riders open access to our campus outside of these organized settings – a decision based on their intent to undermine our mission – the Ride organizers rejected our offer....

"We acknowledge the constitutional right of the Riders to hold their views and to live as they choose. At the same time we affirm our right to our biblical commitments and our institutional mission and values. To give open platform to pro-homosexual activists on our campus to work deliberately against our commitments and values is to be complicit in their cause and to set precedent for future interactions with groups holding contrary missions to our own.

"It is important to recognize that the Equality Ride’s activism is not simply social activism. They claim the authority of Christ and the Scriptures in their advocacy, and in so doing they fall into the biblical category of false teachers, speaking in the name of Christ and the Bible what is directly contrary to Christ and the Bible. Providing a context for false teaching on our campus, without the very carefully circumscribed parameters of our original and rejected offer, is unacceptable."

The above quote appears under "Our Reasoning," along with a fairly detailed narrative of the visit (including shared box lunches and four arrests), at

http://www.covenant.edu/news/soulforce

(Full disclosure: I attended Covenant College.)

[Russ]

It is risky to invite them onto campus, however; note the claim on their website that George Fox University, who allowed them on campus, is now "reevaluating discriminatory policies." It's my understanding that their visit has not prompted any policy change at George Fox U regarding homosexuality. Covenant's approach should be a model for other Christian colleges and universities.

[Ethan Cordray]

I can see much value in Dr. Hutchens' assessment, despite my firsthand experience at Wheaton. However, I did gain a lot of information and perspective about the Soulforcers and their agenda due to Wheaton's approach that I would not have gotten otherwise. For instance, the student protesters whom heard speak did not evidence any particularly cogent or developed faith at all, not even of the liberal Protestant variety. In general, they confirmed my belief that a well reasoned and honest biblical faith cannot mentally coexist with pro-homosexual activism.

So for me personally, Wheaton's strategy had just the effect the administration hoped it would. I cannot speak for the student body as a whole; I'm sorry to say that it may have backfired for many folks.

[dilys]

I suppose giving this group a (time-limited, special event) forum is consistent with the mission of Wheaton College, unlike renewing the contract of a competent, faithful, and well-regarded Catholic teacher. I would like to hear the distinction articulated, though.

[David Gray]

>I would like to hear the distinction articulated, though.

Fascinating point. I'd find it interesting to hear as well.

[smh]

Allow me, Mr. Gonzalez, to excerpt here the response I gave you in our personal correspondence on the matter. I do this particularly because I wish to praise the courage of the Covenant College leadership for doing what I think was the right thing.

We may admit distinctions, to be sure, between churches and non-denominational Christian colleges, but I believe that in the instant case the operative word for both is "Christian." The officers of Covenant College were correct when they said,

"It is important to recognize that the Equality Ride’s activism is not simply social activism. They claim the authority of Christ and the Scriptures in their advocacy, and in so doing they fall into the biblical category of false teachers, speaking in the name of Christ and the Bible what is directly contrary to Christ and the Bible. Providing a context for false teaching on our campus, without the very carefully circumscribed parameters of our original and rejected offer, is unacceptable."

They have, as part of their office, a responsibility to their students to declare on behalf of the College what is to be taught there as Christian, and have been empowered to take appropriate measures to oppose teaching what is not Christian as though it were. In my judgment, they were correct in identifying the homosexual activists as false teachers and, given the nature of the challenge, took appropriate measures against them.

It must be nice to have attended a college where the actions of its leaders encourages one to increase one's support rather than cut it. I've never had the privilege.

Homosexuality in its aggressive, religious form, such as we are seeing it in the Soulforce group, must not find an open door in the Christian world--it must not be extended the courtesy of "dialogue," but forthrightly condemned in a way that preserves the honor and dignity of the Church. There is as little room here for that crabbed little soul who goes from place to place advertising that God hates queers as there is for quisling Christians, anxious to prove their liberality in the face of evil.

__________________

The destructive force of questions like the one posed above about why Wheaton College can provide a forum for the teachings of sodomites but not pious Catholics cannot be underestimated because they cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the intellectual penetration such schools labor to cultivate. Something has to give; something eventually will.

The easiest road is the one George Marsden documented as the one most commonly traveled: the doors will be opened to everyone, and the school will become yet another example of "established nonbelief," formerly Christian. Why should Wheaton fare better than Harvard, or hundreds of other schools of their type? What band of brothers will bleed to keep Wheaton illiberal (i.e., Christian)? It is hard to keep from laughing at that question.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I hold no brief for Wheaton, and I do question its decision to allow the Soulforce group a speaking opportunity on campus. However, a one-time expository occasion used as a teaching moment for one's own students (and perhaps as an evangelistic opportunity for the visitors, should the Lord choose that moment to open someone's eyes and heart to the truth about their chose "lifestyle") is different from offering a paid staff position to a person who does not share the school's central vision (assuming that was the reason for dismissing the Catholic faculty member, which I believe it was). One can say both were unwise, or one or the other, but one is an institutional, permanent decision and the other is a one-time event.

[Bill R]

"However, a one-time expository occasion used as a teaching moment for one's own students (and perhaps as an evangelistic opportunity for the visitors, should the Lord choose that moment to open someone's eyes and heart to the truth about their chose "lifestyle") is different from offering a paid staff position to a person who does not share the school's central vision (assuming that was the reason for dismissing the Catholic faculty member, which I believe it was)."

Precisely,Dcn. Michael. Alan Jacobs wrote an article last year in "First Things" on this issue. FT then printed my letter, taking issue with Jacobs; then Jacobs responded to me in the same mail section. Those who have recently following my misadventures in creating links may understand why I'm too weary to provide links to all of this, but I'm sure a search on FT's website will get you there, if you're interested.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dcn. Harmon, thank you for making a point that I had noted as well. A pro-homosexual professor would most assuredly be fired much quicker than Dr. Hochschild was.

[smh]

My point, gentlemen, is not so easily disposed of. I am not speaking simply of the Hochschild case as an example of the Realpolilik of the Christian college, but of a deep disposition that I have written of many times with regard to the intellectual wing of Evangelicalism--the anxious care it has always taken to show itself of liberal mind to the eye of the academic world, and its resistance to more catholic expressions of Christianity. Take this case, if you will, as you have. There is a sense in which you are right--and Wheaton knows very well that its position on Hochschild is perfectly defensible on this account. But I also have years of experience with the Evangelical academy, and beg leave to see these instances as something more ominous than an institutional cough. We have seen it in hundreds of similar cases; it is the beginning of the death rattle.

[Gene Godbold]

"the beginning of the death rattle"

A scientist buddy of mine taught at Wheaton for the 2003-2004 academic year. (He's also an alumnus.) He agrees with you.

[James A. Altena]

I agree with Dr. Hutchens. There is a deeply rooted problem when a "school's central vision" essentially reduces to upholding a narrow sectarian exegetical position on some particular non-essential doctrinal issue -- "resistance to more catholic expressions of Christianity" (such as Touchstone) in Dr. H.'s phrase -- as the badge of its identity, at the cost of dismissing a soundly orthodox faculty member -- while allowing an avowedly anti-Christian group onto campus as a "a one-time expository occasion used as a teaching moment for one's own students", with the self-flattering illusion that this may also provide an opportunity for "evangelism" -- which actually is an example of kowtowing to worldly definitions and expectations of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness", and were not extended to Dr. Hochschild. If Wheaton had its priorities straight, it would not allowed PRIDE onto campus and would have retained Dr. Hochschild.

[Bill R]

I found my original letter to FT. Sorry I haven't been able to link Jacob's original article or his response to me:

"As usual, Alan Jacobs is very irenic and winsome in the arguments he makes ("To Be A Christian College," April). But I am not fully persuaded. While some evangelicals no doubt believe that the difference between Catholics and Protestants comes down to how each regards the Scriptures, I doubt that most theologians (of whatever stripe) would agree. The fundamental difference has always been one of soteriology, and from that arises a difference in how each approaches the Scriptures. No doubt, as Jacobs argues, there are many common grounds on which evangelicals and Catholics may meet (for example, in the Public Square), but the theological differences are still significant enough that few evangelical colleges will wish to be placed in the ironic position of judging the "orthodoxy" of a Roman Catholic applicant to the faculty! Would such a test be the candidate's adherence to the historic teachings of the Magisterium? Or to a new standard by which they would hope to find (or create) an "evangelicalized" Catholic? If Jacobs' vision comes into being, it is likely to be at a brand-new institution, and not at an established one such as Wheaton."

But I understand and sympathize with SMH's point as well (and of course when I wrote this I was unaware of the PRIDE incident).

[GL]

James A. wrote, "If Wheaton had its priorities straight, it would not allowed PRIDE onto campus and would have retained Dr. Hochschild."

I agree with you, James, as to the former, but must diagree as to the latter. If Wheaton wants to remain an avoid, unashamed institution for orthodox Evangelicals, it should denied homosexual advocacy group's request and should have also dismissed Dr. Hochschild. Dr. Hochschild is without a doubt a first rate scholar and an orthodox Christian, but in deciding to convert to Catholicism, he put himself at odds with the misson of Wheaton. If Wheaton desires to become a home for ecumenical orthodoxy, then dismissing Dr. Hochschild was a huge mistake; if it wants to remain what it has always been, a flagship of Evangelicalism, then it took the only course of action it could.

Whether allowing the homosexual advocacy group to come on campus was a mere cough or "the beginning of the death rattle" is yet to be seen. It is not a hopeful sign, but it is a bit early to make that judgment.

[GL]

Oops "avoid" should have been "avowed"

[David Gray]

>If Wheaton wants to remain an avoid, unashamed institution for orthodox Evangelicals, it should denied homosexual advocacy group's request and should have also dismissed Dr. Hochschild. Dr. Hochschild is without a doubt a first rate scholar and an orthodox Christian, but in deciding to convert to Catholicism, he put himself at odds with the misson of Wheaton.

GL

Very well stated.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I always hesitate more than a bit to even be perceived to be contending with the estimable Mr. Hutchins, since I believe he speaks what he believes to be true without fear or favor, and I greatly admire that. Further, I almost always agree with him, and wish I had his laser-focus eye for cant and rottenness at the core of many of our institutions, including our churches. I was only saying that if Wheaton saw its core mission as exclusive of the Catholic view of what it regarded as essential issues, as an institution it had every right to dismiss a faculty member, no matter how well qualified, if he disagreed with what the institution described as its core mission.

That is not a statement about which side of this issue I believe to be more authentically Christian. And I do wish that more Catholic schools were considerably more diligent about training and hiring authentically Catholic faculty. The cause of Christ would then be greatly strenghtened in our culture.

[GL]

Dcn. Harmon,

I agree with you. Were a faculty member of Franciscan University of Steubenville or Ave Marie to convert to Prebyterianism, I would expect that this person should expect to be dismissed. If an institution of higher education wants to represent faithfully a specific Christian tradition, it has every right and every obligation to assure that its faculty not only support, but actually believe and practice that specific tradition.

If a person truly believes and practices the Catholic faith then it is not appropriate for him to be a member of the faculty of an avowed Evangelical college; if he has converted to Catholicism but does not truly believe and practice the Catholic faith, then it is not appropriate for him to be a member of the faculty of any Christian college worthy of the name. The same could be said, with appropriate substitutions, for a professor teaching at a Catholic college who converted to any tradition of Protestantism.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dr. Hutchens may well be right that a refusal would have been a better course. There is something problematic about giving an open forum to a group that espouses a perspective that has already been finally rejected in the institution's eyes. It does tend to extend credibility where it is undeserved.

That said, I think the result of Wheaton's strategy was about as positive as such a thing could be. Whether this represents another step down the inevitable liberalizing slope, we will have to wait and see. The jury is still out on that in my mind as well. I sincerely hope that is not the case.

[Reid]

Regarding allowing a group like Soulforce onto a Christian college campus (my own school faced the same question recently), I think of that striking pair of proverbs,

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Pr. 26:4-5.

The point, I think, is that there are no good options for dealing with a fool. Folly precludes fruitful response. Whatever you do is wrong. Logically a Christian university must respond either like Covenant or like Wheaton, and neither response is altogether satisfying to those who make it.

I think Dr. Hutchens's comments, however, indicate which response tends to be more dangerous for Christian universities. The academic world takes as a defining virtue the idea that every question must be open for civil discussion. The ideal professor responds to the most outrageous suggestion, not with outrage, but with a readiness to engage the suggestion thoughtfully on its own merits. [We all know, and a certain recent president of Harvard discovered, of course, that certain suggestions truly are out of bounds, but for now I gloss over that inconsistency.]

It is easy to argue for this total openness by mentioning honest inquirers who suffered persecution because of their honesty (Socrates and Galileo loom large in the academic imagination), yet such an approach leaves nothing sacred, quite literally. Thus it is incompatible with being a Christian university. At some point a Christian's (or Christian University's) response to outrageous suggestions must be outrage ("either courteous words or hard knocks" as King Tirian instructs Eustace). The trouble is that the secular academic world views outrage as unscholarly, unprofessional, anti-intellectual, closed-minded, and uncritical. A school that takes such a view disqualifies itself from being taken seriously. This, I think, is why several Southern Baptist universities in North Carolina and Kentucky are severing ties with that denomination. They want to be taken seriously academically, and they believe they cannot do so while maintaining close ties to the Southern Baptists.

So I think Dr. Hutchens rightly sees that the temptation for Christian universities lies in the direction of being too open to discuss the undiscussable, for that is a peculiar sin of the modern university.

[GL]

Reid's post has caused me to see the connection between SMH's views expressed here and my reply to Jim's post on Under the Sun.

Reid wrote:

The trouble is that the secular academic world views outrage as unscholarly, unprofessional, anti-intellectual, closed-minded, and uncritical. A school that takes such a view disqualifies itself from being taken seriously.

I suspect (it is actually more than mere speculation) that the reasons my students and even serious jurist like Richard Posner are becoming more absolutists in their views of the proscriptions of the free speech clause of the First Amendment is that they have adopted a "world view [in which] outrage as unscholarly, unprofessional, anti-intellectual, closed-minded, and uncritical." Like the schools in Reid's post, these individuals believe "that [a person who] takes such a view disqualifies [him]self from being taken seriously."

[Gene Godbold]

Except, of course, when it comes to political outrage, then it's quite popular. Didn't Peter Wood--a conservative anthropologist at a school in Boston--recently write a book on how popular "political" anger was?

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL and David (& others of like mind),

Obviously, I disagree strongly, and stand by what I wrote. If Wheaton truly wished to preserve its identity in the manner here suggested, then it should likewise not admit Roman Catholics as students either. And there is a major difference with e.g. Ave Maria. The RC colleges mentioned specify up front to prospective faculty that adherence to the teachings of the Magisterium is a condition of employment. This principle also holds true (or at least did) for e.g. Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI. (I had a Baptist acquaintance who some 20+ years ago assumed a temporary appointment there, but could not gain a permanent position because the contract for those specified acceptance of the entire Westminster Confeession, including paedobaptism. He finally gained a position at U-NC Raleigh/Durham instead).

By contrast, Wheaton's declaration and employment contracts had no such specificity, nor anything remotely approaching it, and I agree with Dr. Hochschild that he could in fact continue to claim to adhere to it in good faith. And no-one has been able to point to even a shred of evidence that, had Dr. Hochschild remained at Wheaton, he would have undermined its declared principles in any way.

So, I have no complaint with either Ave Maria or Calvin, who put matters up front in black and white. Had that also been the case with Wheaton, I would have had no objection to Dr. Hochschild's dismissal from there. But such was not the case. Rather, as Dr. Hutchens has noted here and on previous posts, Wheaton's actions regarding all of these matters are symptomatic of a deep and leprous rot.

Dr. Hochschild's dismissal was at bottom, I believe, not an act to preserve institutional and confessional integrity, but a calculated and hypocritical gesture to satisfy certain parts of Wheaton's constituency (both liberal and conservative) with the red meat of anti-Roman Catholic prejudice, while it quietly compromises, shills, and sells out to heretical theological revisionists in the pursuit of academic respectability. (Apropos of Reid's post, it's quite respectable in academia, even fashionable, to be in a state of perpetual outrage against faithful and devout RCs, so Hochsschild's dismissmal could kill two birds with one stone for Wheaton by currying favor with the academic establishment while pleasing the hard-core anti-Catholic portion of its constituency at the same time).

I also find it odd that those who support Hochschild's dismissal from Wheaton have not also been calling with equal fervor for e.g. Notre Dame to become more truly Roman Catholic by dismissing Alvin Plantinga from its faculty. And our own Tony Esolen is part of an effort to restore the Catholic character of Brown University -- should he likewise seek the dismissal of fellow faculty members who are Protestant as part of that movement? Once one buys into the slipshod justifications that Wheaton used to dismiss Prof. Hochschild, where does it end?

No one on this site is in favor of unprincipled open-ended revisionist ecumenicism. But to see the shabby sectarianism of Wheaton in the Hochschild case defended and advocated on the web site of Touchstone, of all magazines and places, is for me deeply saddening and disturbing. Perhaps folks here who disagree with me here are giving Wheaton the benefit of the doubt (which I would view as naive), and would therefore in turn consider my views of Wheaton's motives judgmental or even cynical. Nevertheless, I stand by them.

[Bill R]

"By contrast, Wheaton's declaration and employment contracts had no such specificity, nor anything remotely approaching it, and I agree with Dr. Hochschild that he could in fact continue to claim to adhere to it in good faith. And no-one has been able to point to even a shred of evidence that, had Dr. Hochschild remained at Wheaton, he would have undermined its declared principles in any way."

It's been a while since I've looked at the facts of this case, James. What did Wheaton's declaration and employment contracts provide in this regard? And who ultimately gets to decide if someone who publically declares himself no longer to be an evangelical Protestant can in fact adhere to the declaration of principles of an evangelical Protestant college?

[smh]

We may or may not be near the end of the comments on this posting, but I would like to thank the participants for furnishing admirable examples here of exchanging views in a gentlemanly fashion and of staying on topic.

[GL]

Bill R. and all,

For those who are unfamiliar with or have forgotten the facts, see To Be a Christian College by Alan Jacobs in First Things (April 2006). Dr. Jacobs, also at Wheaton, reported that "in the 2004–2005 academic year Josh Hochschild became the first Catholic ever to hold a full-time teaching position in the nearly one-hundred-and-fifty-year history of the college." The basic dispute, as I understand it, was whether a devout, orthodox Catholic could in all honesty sign the Statement of Faith of Wheaton. The college believed its Statement of Faith and especially its statement on Scripture was antithetical to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus, Wheaton concluded, if Hochschild was a good Catholic, he could not sign the Wheaton Statement of Faith and if he could sign the Wheaton Statement of Faith, he could not be a good Catholic. It seems rather straightforward to me.

[smh]

Just a final remark from me on Mr. Cordray's observation that the jury is still out on Wheaton: very true, it is, and make no mistake, I wish it well. I do not want that school to take the road that most of its type have taken, and although I see no present indications of anything extraordinary happening there, I would rejoice if something did.

Please understand that I write as I do on subjects like this in the forlorn hope that I might goad someone into proving me wrong--that thirty years down the road, a Wheaton historian might be able to resurrect what I have been saying here and triumphantly display me as a shining example of total error.

[Bill R]

"It seems rather straightforward to me."

Agreed, GL. But I thought I'd give James a chance to illuminate me. A conservatively ecumenical college sounds great to me. I just don't see that Wheaton would be unjust in concluding that its statement did not require it to be so.

[Firinnteine]

Patrick Henry College (of which I am an alumnus) took a view along the Covenant lines, partly for "false teacher" reasons and partly in order to reject the "political showmanship" methods Soulforce practices.

I can see the argument for this; I think SMH has put it forward particularly well. However, there were many students and alumni who felt that this closed the door on an opportunity to communicate with Soulforce regarding the traditional Christian view. They felt that there must be some way to share the Love of Christ in a way that did not validate the false teachings being presented.

In short -- as someone observed above -- the choice between an open forum or a police line is, at best, highly unsatisfactory.

[Firinnteine]

Is it fair to say that the problem is not that Wheaton has chosen and maintained one particular Christian tradition, but rather, 1) the position was not communicated with sufficient clarity beforehand, and 2) the position is not being maintained with sufficient consistency?

[Ethan Cordray]

Firinnteine,

I think you've hit part of it on the head with your second post. The deeper issue is whether non-denominational Evangelicalism even has a position of sufficient clarity and consistency that they might maintain it in this way.

To my mind, the crux of the issue is whether, as President Litfin believes, the Statement of Faith rules out Roman Catholicism, or whether, as Dr. Hochschild believed, it does not. if all parties had agreed concerning the nature of Wheaton's Evangelical essence, there would have been no controversy.

This points to a major difference between the Hochschild incident and the Soulforce visit. In the latter, there was no significant controversy over the college's position (aside from a few cantakerous students, which is generally unavoidable). The debate was rather over what the best pragmatic course was to diffuse the challenge to the college's identity. Wheaton may have taken the wrong line in that due to excessive considerations of image and "respectability," but their major goal was always to present the best Christian witness in opposition to Soulforce's objective.

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL,

Obviously, I disagree that it's straightforward -- or, if it is, then it is in the opposite direction.

I agree with much though not all of Jacobs' article. He covers the particular issues, and relevant language in the Wheaton Statement of Faith, so I don't see a need to post the full Statement itself.

For me, a key paragraph is this:

"Indeed, some people believe the rapprochement between Catholics and Protestants is so nearly complete that the acceptance of Catholics as faculty at Wheaton would mark a relatively minor change. I wish I could agree, but I cannot. Certainly such a decision would reverberate in Wheaton’s constituency: There are many alumni and other donors who share the old hostility to and suspicion of Catholicism. And I am sure President Litfin has thought more than a few times of how he might handle that first phone call from a Baptist or Presbyterian parent irate because his daughter, under the influence of a charismatic Catholic professor, has just expressed (while nervously clicking the beads of her rosary) her desire to be received into Mother Church."

First off, the fact that Hochschild would have been the first RC to hold a faculty position at Wheaton is neither here nor there. Obviously, in the past there was the first Lutheran, the first Episcopalian, etc., to do so, and no one deduces from that a necessary logical conclusion that their prior absence is a fortiori evidence of an absolute incompatibility of the views of their deonominations with those of Wheaton's Statement.

Second, the paragraph notes what I also cited -- that one significant motivation for the dismissal was anti-Catholic bigotry among alumni. Given that, I can hardly suppose that Hochschild was given a fully objective evaluation.

Third, the last sentence is a highly suspect and gratuitous supposition. Is there any evidence that Hochschild would have sought to influence students to convert students from Evangelical Protestantism to Rome? Why not suppose instead that Prof. Hochschild has enough personal and professional integrity not to engage in such an action?

Fourth, for me the main problem in your argument is:

"The college believed its Statement of Faith and especially its statement on Scripture was antithetical to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus, Wheaton concluded, if Hochschild was a good Catholic, he could not sign the Wheaton Statement of Faith and if he could sign the Wheaton Statement of Faith, he could not be a good Catholic."

This is not straightforward for several reasons.

First, did the college as a whole really decide this, or was it ultimately a personal decision by a President Liftin or a small committee on behalf of the college?

Second, there is the question of who gets to define what here. On what basis does the college decide that a good Catholic cannot sign its statement, and that someone who signs the statement cannot be a good Catholic? Aside from the difficulty of attributing such judgments to an abstraction such as "the college", as opposed to particular officers of the college, what this implies is that Wheaton arrogates to itself the right to define what is a good Catholic, as opposed to the RC Church or the RC believer in question (Hochschild in this instance) so defining.

Of course, the reverse difficulty might also be alleged to be present -- i.e. that Hochschild would in effect be in the position of telling Wheaton that he, and not the college, could define its mission statement. But I hold this to be an asymmetrical and fallacious comparison. For in the first case, Wheaton is making a general determination of what is a good Catholic, whereas in the second Hochschild is only making a personal and particular determination that he can agree with the statement as written.

I find it an amazing piece of arrogance that Wheaton thinks that it can presume to tell Hochschild what the latter can or cannot in good conscience believe a certain statement means, and also to tell him as a consequence whether or not he is a good or bad Catholic. The former is for Prof. Hochschild, and the latter for the RC Church, to determine. (It reminds me of an issue of the rabidly hyper-Calvinist "Nicotine Journal" -- the folks who recently presumed to ask whether JPII might have been in some sense a "good man" even though as Pope he was the anti-Christ and almost certainly in Hell -- which likewise presume to declare that a "good Catholic" could not sign any of the statements issued by Evangelicals and Catholics Together.)

I also find it interesting that Wheaton made no attempt to adjudicate the question of whether or not a Catholic could accept the language of its Statement in good conscience and without dissimulation by consulting some person or body of appropriate authority within the Roman church itself. It also made no effort, to my knowledge, to distinguish between what ti takes to be the official institutional views of Rome and the personal views of Prof. Hochschild. Or, to put it a bit ironically, would Hochschild have been alllowed to stay if he had been jduged to be a dissident or "bad Catholic" isntead of a "good Catholic"? After all, that would be consistent with Wheaton's apparently increasing accomodation with what might be termmed "bad Protestants" who dissenet from the historical confessions of their respective denominations in favor of various revisionist theologies.

Thus, what the argument really comes down to is whether Wheaton can dictate to Hochschild how he *must* read certain quite general and vague phrases in its statement.

Given that Wheaton (to my knowledge) has not done this to any other faculty member before, I see no grounds other than bigotry and hypocrisy for it to suddenly demand such now. If Wheaton was so incompetent as to draft a Statement of Faith so vague (presumably in an effort to be "non-denominational" Protestant) that a Roman Catholic states he can accept it in good faith, then it should have to live with the consequences. And if it has previously left the interpretation of such language to those signing their affirmations of conscientious agreement with the Statement (as the C. of E. did with the 39 Articles, declaring only under Charles I that they must be accepted in their "natural and grammatical" sense), then it has no justification for arbitarily altering that criterion here. Again, the reason for Wheaton so doing is bigotry, pure and simple.

Admittedly, any institution must have a right to determine what its documents mean. But even that is limited by the language of the documents. Hence the vagueness of Wheaton's Statement is a key issue here. When the institution has made the language is vague and general, and has left liberty to persons in interpreting that, it has no grounds for complaint over how that language is interpreted, an no grounds on which to tell a person that he cannot sign onto it in good faith.

If Wheaton really thinks that being a faithful RC is incompatible with being on its faculty, then what it ought to do is re-write its Statement of Faith to exclude that possibility explicitly in unmistakeable language, and make all the faculty re-sign it as a condition of employment. (It could either adopt some Protestant confessions such as the WCF, or stipulate rejection of certain RC doctrines such as denial of transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper.) But it has not done so.

And none of this addresses the point I made that if this is truly Wheaton's standard, then it also ought not to be admitting RCs as students, either. But it does. Apparently on that level, money and a veneer of tolerance is more important than supposed theological principle.

In short, I see no reason to change my view that Wheaton is guilty of rank hypocrisy in this matter.

[David Gray]

>Again, the reason for Wheaton so doing is bigotry, pure and simple.

You tend at times to be rather free with charges of bigotry against your Christian brothers. As someone who was an unjust recipient at one point of your charges of bigotry I suggest you become more circumspect in your use of the term if you wish people to take your use of it seriously.

Your attribution of such bigotry towards those who lead Wheaton is based on rather tendentious reasoning which amounts to "no Protestant can really know the doctrinal position of orthodox Catholics" (for some reason I must be the only Protestant with a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and even if they could know the doctrinal position of an orthodox Catholic they couldn't hope to know whether such a position was compatible with their own statement of faith.

Indeed the Wheaton statement of faith states:

"WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say."

Now that statement, particularly as historically understood by Protestants, is not compatible with the Roman Catholic understanding. Maybe we are right. Perhaps they are right. We are not both fully right. Contrast Wheaton's statement with a statement from Thomas Acquinas College that their "understanding that Sacred Scripture and the magisterium of the Church are the most important sources of enlightenment". As one would expect of an overtly Roman Catholic school. And good for them. This stands in contrast to Wheaton's statement. The contrast is not complete and utter but they are distinct.

As SMH observed:

"We really aren't a fellowship for people who grip their Christianity lightly. We expect Touchstone Catholics, for example, to be strong Catholics, loyal to the Pope and traditional Catholic teaching, and mutatis mutandis, the same for the rest of us. "

So let Wheaton try to be Touchstone Protestants as well. I wish they would be even better at it. Now James you know that by your own statements you are not committed to the Protestant distinctives in the way most orthodox Protestants are. Indeed you have said:

"I don't know of a single Anglican who would fall on a sword for the 1979 liturgies, but I know plenty (including myself) for whom one major reason they stay within some form of Anglicanism, rather than going to Rome or Orthodoxy, is to keep the beloved classical BCP for daily worship."

Now for most Protestants the reason they don't go to Rome or Constantinople isn't their prayer book (as great as the BCP is, particularly the originals). Their differences are larger than that. I know you stand where you do in good conscience. But so do mainstream Protestants. You should respect that. I wish all Roman Catholic schools were robustly and overtly Roman Catholic. And I wish the same for Protestant schools. If there is to be unity it would be best if it not come through fudged understandings. My general problem with Wheaton is it is not sufficiently robust but when it gives a nod in that direction, good for them. But that may also, over time, derive from the whole "evangelical" notion rather than identification with specific confessional churches and understandings. Perhaps that is a topic for a different discussion.

[James A. Altena]

David,

I never said that "no Protestant can really know the doctrinal position of orthodox Catholics." But there is also a certain degree of latitude (not unlimited, as I pointed out) in many such positions or their particular applications. That is e.g. why there are theologeumena, rather than only fixed doctrinal statements, about many aspects of the Christian faith. I made the point that Wheaton's language was sufficiently vague that a good Catholic could affirm all of its propositions, and that Wheaton is not in a sufficent position to say otherwise. (For that matter, how do you know that you are understanding the Catholic Catechism correctly, unless you consult a knowledgeable RC about the exact meaning and significance of many words and phrases?)

The two quotes you cite are not in opposition per se. You yourself admit that they are "distinct." Agreed. But the issue here is not "distinct" but "incompatible" -- and that manifestly is not the case. For Wheaton to make them so, it would have to have an additional statement asserting that the Scriptures are not subject to any earthly ecclesial agency for their authoritative interpetation. (Of course, that presents a difficulty to having any standard confessions at all.) Until it does so (I suggested how that could be done), it has no legitimate grounds for dismissing Hochschild.

As for bigotry here, Alan Jacobs affirmed that in spades in the passage I quoted, and (like the umpire) I will call it whenever I see it. And I heard enough overt anti-RC bigotry in the years I spent in Evangelical Bible Study groups to last several lifetimes. I'm not talking about doctrinal disagreement. I'm talking about open statements that RCs are not Christians and not saved. Just as one can find similarly bigoted statements by RCs or EOs about Protestants and each other.

The problem here is that Wheaton did not really "give a nod in that direction" and "try to be Touchstone Protestants as well." Indeed, I suggested how they could have truly done so in a principled manner (as well as my previous statement about having no problem with e.g. Calvin College), but you ignored that. Instead, Wheaton did the politically expedient thing to placate certian constituencies rather than the principled thing. I stand by that assessment.

[David Gray]

>For that matter, how do you know that you are understanding the Catholic Catechism correctly, unless you consult a knowledgeable RC about the exact meaning and significance of many words and phrases?

Because I'm literate? Words mean things. If you want to take the approach that words have no objective meaning we don't have much to discuss. If one were locked in a closet with no context one might misinterpret parts of the CC incorrectly but to miss major points when one has regularly read orthodox Roman Catholic writers on such subjects is unlikely.

>I made the point that Wheaton's language was sufficiently vague that a good Catholic could affirm all of its propositions, and that Wheaton is not in a sufficent position to say otherwise.

James that isn't a point, it is a highly debatable assertion. Who are you to say Wheaton is not in a sufficient position? Looks to me like they are.

>I will call it whenever I see it.

And do you apologize when you blow it?

[Ethan Cordray]

James wrote:
>>If Wheaton was so incompetent as to draft a Statement of Faith so vague (presumably in an effort to be "non-denominational" Protestant) that a Roman Catholic states he can accept it in good faith, then it should have to live with the consequences.<<

That was essentially my take on the matter at the time. I am far from a neutral observer, as I greatly admired Dr. Hochschild as a teacher. I am still of the opinion that the Statement of Faith as it was formulated (I believe they are considering revision now) did not in itself exclude Roman Catholics.

It's quite ironic that the Wheaton administration needed to act as a magisterium to interpret its own document in this matter!

My problem with the Hochschild decision, then, is not so much with the college's fundamental goal -- preserving its Evangelical Protestant identity -- but in the weak and confused manner in which they pursued that goal in this instance.

I do not think the administration was greatly motivated by bigotry. Dr. Litfin had already written a book laying out his vision of Wheaton as a particularly Evangelical Protestant college. In my opinion it was this objective that primarily motivated the decision. The Hochschild situation arose while the college did not have a sufficiently robust defining document to clearly deal with it, and this is what led to the problems.

Of course, this leads to the deeper issue, which David touches on:
>>My general problem with Wheaton is it is not sufficiently robust but when it gives a nod in that direction [toward robust Protestantism], good for them. But that may also, over time, derive from the whole "evangelical" notion rather than identification with specific confessional churches and understandings.<<

Wheaton's real problem comes from trying to be vague enough to encompass the entire tent of Evangelicalism, while still being specific enough to excluse those whom they consider "beyond the pale." I have a hard time seeing how this will be possible for them, given the theological diversity (or some would say, chaos) within Evangelicalism, which I see getting worse as time goes by.

I think Wheaton as an institution has basically three options:

1. Commit itself to a particular exclusive confessional stance

2. Liberalize

3. Become a fully ecumenical institution with a minimal "Mere Christianity"-style foundation of essential orthodoxy, while refusing to take a side on the great historical questions of division.

(1) is extremely unlikely, given that Wheaton has never had a denominational allegiance, and constricting the confessional requirements would cause a lot of problems for the current faculty and staff.

(2) is the default result that will happen nnaturally if nothing is done. Fortunately, Litfin and others are at least somewhat aware of this fact.

(3) would be difficult, especially because of the anti-Catholic bigotry that James rightly points out among Wheaton's alumni and donor community. But I think it is the best shot Wheaton has for long-term survival as a meaningfully Christian institution.

Incidentally, I do see some hope for option (3), as Litfin's book holds it out as a legitimate possible form for a meaningfully Christian college to take. However, he does not see it as the path for Wheaton to take. He has much more confidence in the workability of an Evangelical Protestant institution than I do.

[Ethan Cordray]

We've gotten rather off topic, though all this does relate somewhat to the strategy various institutions take in response to something like Soulforce. Essentially: a college will choose how to respond based on its self-concept. Wheaton has a somewhat confused self-concept, and could have reacted in several different ways.

A successful response relies of one of two things:

1. Sufficient institutional confidence to deny them entry and accept the criticism and bad publicity that follows.

2. Sufficient institutional strength to allow them entry but control the course of events so that no harm is done to the institution and the visit becomes an occasion for growth.

Option (2) strikes me as the far more difficult strategy, and it is the one Wheaton attempted. I'm not sure they quite pulled it off. No survey data exists, as far as I know, to indicate whether the visit did any damage to students' (and teachers') faith. I know that mine was personally unharmed, and in fact strengthened. I hope many others had the same reaction, though I fear that many did not.

The college's decision to try for (2) no doubt was, as Dr. Hutchens argues, partially driven by a too-great distasted for the results of option (1). But that does not in itself invalidate the college's decision, which may -- I stress, may -- have worked out for the best. At any rate, it was not an unmitigated disaster.

[James A. Altena]

Ethan, thank you for your excellent reflections, which may provide some middle ground between myself and David here. Extremely well stated in every respect. My hat is off to you.

I should clarify that the bigotry to which I refer is not the college administration per se, but a constituency among the alumni (to which Jacobs effectively refers in the passage I quoted), which Wheaton's actions regarding Hochschild were, I remain convinced, were aimed at appeasing.

Of the three options, while I might prefer #3, I would not have a problem with #1, as I have already stated.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>I should clarify that the bigotry to which I refer is not the college administration per se, but a constituency among the alumni (to which Jacobs effectively refers in the passage I quoted), which Wheaton's actions regarding Hochschild were, I remain convinced, were aimed at appeasing.<<

I don't really disagree with you, but I do not think that was the deciding element in the decision. After all, Litfin and the other administrators were selected with the alumni constituency in mind, so it should not be surprising that their philosophical vision of the college would be congruent with the alumni's rather less rational opinions.

[David Gray]

>I think Wheaton as an institution has basically three options:

>1. Commit itself to a particular exclusive confessional stance

>2. Liberalize

>3. Become a fully ecumenical institution with a minimal "Mere Christianity"-style foundation of essential orthodoxy, while refusing to take a side on the great historical questions of division.

The problem with three isn't anti-Catholic bigotry but rather that it would be strongly at odds with the purpose of Wheaton. As would one. In one sense Wheaton is striving to be a Protestant version of number three. It is a minimalistic big tent Protestant school. This is leading it gradually to number two. I suspect in the unlikely event they went with three in its non-Protestant form, as described above, it would still eventually migrate towards two, for much the same reasons it is now. Option one might be the most desirable but it is no guarantee either as either the confessional body it would be under could go bad or it could go bad independent of that body (how many Roman Catholic schools have gone that route?)

[David Chord]

Can I make a suggestion here?

I know I am unknown among you, and only found this site less than an hour ago, but I would like to put forward some thoughts that you might find useful. You might even find that this saves lives. I ask that you read it and pray about it, do NOT make any judgements based on what I say regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

First and formost. I am an absolutely dedicated Christian. Nothing and no one can shake my faith - and believe me when I say that I have had many many serious attacks. Not just on me but on friends and family as well in attempts to get me to turn away. But I am still here, and have been for most of my life (I became a Christian when I was 14, I am 33 now)

But.. Since I was 6 I have known I've had a sexual interest in other males (no, I was not sexually abused - the only "abusive" thing that has been done to me sexually is the way I was made to feel). I do not believe I was born bisexual, I do not believe it has anything to do with genetics (my good friends Neil and Briar Whitehead removed any remaining chance of that), but I DO believe that God allowed me to become bisexual, probably for a purpose (hey, if He didn't allow it to happen then why did it happen? And why, after so many years of prayer and tears do I still feel this way?)

I am neither pro nor anti homosexual. I am bi-sexual. That is a state that I cannot change, that only the Lord can change. And He has not yet done so.

I am NOT in any way engaged in pro-homosexual activism. Well, unless you count stuff like this message. But this is a rare event.

What I am for is Christ my Lord and Saviour (yeah, I know this comes as a shock to some of you but people can be gay and Christian). Just in case anyone is uncertain, I confess with my mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord. I believe that He is the Son of the one and only God, and as foretold by the prophets of old that He was born of a virgin, that He lived a sinless life as a man on Earth, that He was cruicified completely innocent of sins, but His sacrifice was made for our sin, and that on the 3rd day He was raised from the dead, defeating death and sin once and for all. His sacrifice gave us forgiveness and life.

Now all that's out of the way...

Ask yourself.. Is this helpful? Is it helpful to judge someone else? Or to belittle them? Does it help the body to tell a believer that s/he is not allowed in the body? Does it help to work against another part of the body? Should we treat people this way? Is it in anyway right to treat another Christian like dirt because of something that is beyond their control?

Or maybe we should just let God deal with it? Would that not be a better idea?

We have this problem in the body where we seem to feel that it is our job to either fix someone or if we can't fix them, to destroy them. We expect everyone to be exactly like us. Weren't we taught that parts of the body have a different purppose? That not all are going to be alike? Did Jesus not say to deal with the plank in our own eye before we deal with the speck in someone else's eye? Shouldn't that tell us something?

I am here to tell you something. Many of those who tell homosexuals that they cannot be Christians are going to be among those who hear our Lord say "Away from me, I never knew you". Why? Because you have judged someone to be unworthy to be a Christian, to be saved, based on your own views. The Bible is full of warnings against judging others - many more than it has against homosexuality. And many of those warnings say that how we judge others is how we're going to be judged. So if you judge someone as not beind worthy because of something like their sexuality, are you not judging yourself to be unworthy because of your own sins in your life?

I have suffered a great deal at the hands of people who believe I cannot be saved because of something that became a part of me before Jesus did. People who claim to be Christians have threatened to kill me because of my sexuality (no doubt some who read this will agree with them - I should be denied life because I am not straight, even though it was never my choice and if I had my way I would never once have had a "gay thought"). Some nearly have killed me by driving me to suicide.

I am no where near the person I could be today, because I have so often been attacked and put down and shoved down because of my sexuality.

At a time when I was 17, I moved to a new town. I decided beforehand to attend a certain church because I knew some of the youth there. The pastor of the church in my old town let the pastor of my new church know I was coming, and that I wasn't straight. The pastor of my new church met me before I started attending, and forbade me from talking to any of the younger males at that church. I was not even allowed to talk to people in my own age group. Can you imagine what that can do to a young man? Can you imagine what that wonderful example of Christian Leadership(tm) can do to a persons faith? Do you believe it is in any way right?

Now, I am not in the least saying that people should fling open the doors and let homosexuals run everything, that we should all declare our love for same sex and whatnot. What I am saying is that we should basically drop the issue. Jesus, whose standard we should at least try to live by, taught us that by a person's fruit we will know them. He also told us that God does not look at what man looks at, but God looks at the heart.

I firmly believe that the sexuality of someone is a non issue. What should be the issue is how they live now, what their fruits are. Are they comitting adultery? (please remember that Jesus defined adultery as having sex with another persons spouse, and Jesus made it clear that a divorce did not matter - according to Him if you divorce and remarry then you are comitting adultery). Is the person a theif? Do they honour God? Are they a murderer? And so on. Do they live for Jesus, do they live a good life? Is the light of the Lord clear in their lives? Are they clean living? Do they treat their neighbours with love?

Most people who I know and who I have had the chance to minister to have had no idea that I am bisexual. It simply is not an issue. I don't make it an issue. The Lord does not make it an issue. If they ask, I'll answer. If they decide they do not want what the Lord is offering through me, that is their loss. But when it comes to ministering, to doing the Lords work, which is important - that the job gets done, or that the person that does the job is straight? If a person is a non christian and in the last minutes of their life, will it matter that a gay person is the only Christian around to lead them to the Lord? Or should that gay person stay away, remind themselves that because they are gay they cannot possibly be of use to the Lord, and let that unsaved person die as an unsaved person? Do you think the Lord cares who leads someone to Him? Does it matter who preaches His Salvation, if that person is doing the preaching from the right motives? Paul teaches that it does not matter if the person is preaching for gain or otherwise, so long as it is Christ that is preached, but how many would speak out against a gay person preaching Christ for the sole purpose of seeing the Kingdom enlarged?

This is a long way from what I planned.. I planned to say a few words describing how much the anti-gay hysteria can harm someone, and to ask if it is right or even Biblical that we allow something like this in our midst. Instead, you get this :-)

But that is what it comes down to. The anti-gay hysteria does a lot of harm to people who sincerely don't want to be gay. It does a lot of harm to those who don't care if they are straight or not, they just want to live for Jesus and do God's Will in their lives wherever that takes them (it takes me into many places where I can reach non-straight people, people most Christians will never have a chance of reaching - never thought of that did you? :-) ), and it hurts those who want to be gay, but still want to do their all for God. And anything that hurts part of the body hurts all of the body - remember that.

A last comment. I have not once given an actual reference to a passage in scripture, but I can provide them if asked (probably best in email because I cannot gaurantee that I will get back here - gnome@gnome.co.nz or if that is broken, gnome@paradise.net.nz). I would like to note that Jesus, Paul, and others quoted scripture in the Bible, but they did not give specific references either. They may have referenced an author or a book, but not the chapter and verse that some would expect me to be quoting. And the Bereans were noted as being "more noble" because they did what? Think about it.

Thanks for listening, and God Bless.. And if you made it this far, may God bless you many many more times for your patience and stamina :-)

[Bobby Winters]

David,

What I would say is that it is not whether or not one are attract to ones own sex that makes one a sinner, but whether one acts on it. God's design is for opposite sexes to attract. Your attractions are outside of God's design. You've got quite a well developed little rationalization there and you've blinkered the scripture to suit your purposes.

If you were convinced that you had to give us sex outside of a traditional marriage in order to follow Jesus, would you do it?

[Judy Warner]

David, you wrote:

I firmly believe that the sexuality of someone is a non issue. What should be the issue is how they live now, what their fruits are. Are they comitting adultery?

This is exactly right. Your sexuality is not the issue. The fruits of it are the issue. If heterosexuals are committing adultery they are sinning. Many men feel that they are naturally strongly attracted to many women, and some of them feel unfulfilled unless they can bed some of those women, even if they are married or the women are married. This is a sin no matter how strong their feelings are or how much the men feel they were born that way. (Not to exclude women from this sin, just making a close comparison to David's situation.)

If you engage in sexual relations with another man, this is a parallel case. It does not warrant abusing you, getting hysterical, or threatening to kill you. And you are correct that more attention should be paid to the sexual sins of heterosexuals. However, it is of no help to you to go along with your rationalizations. And if you are, as you describe it, bi-sexual, then surely it would be possible for you to direct your feelings in the correct direction, with God's help. I will keep you in my prayers.

[David Chord]

What I would say is that it is not whether or not one are attract to ones own sex that makes one a sinner, but whether one acts on it.

That is quite true, and in a sense part of what I was trying to say.. We shouldn't look at what one thinks in their "bad times", but what one does most of the time. The fruit is the key.

God's design is for opposite sexes to attract. Your attractions are outside of God's design.

Correct. I don't dispute that.

You've got quite a well developed little rationalization there and you've blinkered the scripture to suit your purposes.

But I do dispute that. For a start, as I mentioned in my first message I am friends with Neil and Briar Whitehead - authors of the book "My Genes Made me Do It". Don't get the title wrong, they are AGAINST the view that homosexuality is genetic and fully support it being something that comes about later in life. They lived not far from where I lived when we met, and we became friends. We talked and prayed often about things with me, with them, with others. But my time with them prevents any chance of me believing that my sexuality is something I was born with, nor do I have any belief that it is right. What I do believe is that there are other larger issues to deal with. While there is still one person who is not saved, gay or otherwise, I think that is far more important than which way someone swings.

If I came across in saying that "gay is ok" I did not mean that, and I apologize. What I am saying is that "gay is not a choice, and it is not an issue if someone is living for Him".

I was also wanting to say that a lot of the anti-gay stuff does some serious harm.

Oh, and please don't question my love of the Scriptures - I may misinterpret some things at times, but never to make something fit my own view. I have argued with many homosexuals in the past about how Scripture (at least on the surface) calls it sin. I've taken a lot of flack from homosexuals because of it as well - but then I never mind taking flack for taking a stance on what I believe is right.

I may misinterpret something, and I may (sometimes fiercly) hold on to that misinterpretation for a while, but I will always study and seek the truth. Maybe that's why some of my views don't always fit with that some of the mainstream views are (and I am not talking about homosexuality). I will not allow my life to be dictated by my rules. God's Will is what I desire. I may sometimes (well, often) miss the mark, but what I want is of no matter. And at times I get a little "sorry, that's not what I want for you" and I have to change my views on something. Not 'blown around be winds of doctrine' but someone who is going through a learning process, gaining an ever deeper understanding of His Word.

If you were convinced that you had to give us sex outside of a traditional marriage in order to follow Jesus, would you do it?

Yes. If I was convinced something was a requirement to follow Jesus, then yes, I would do it. But there are very few things that I am convinced are requirements to follow Him.Believing in Him and a willingness to follow His commands (of which I can count only 12 off the top of my head - the original 10 commandments, "Love each other as I have loved you", and 'The Great Comission') are all I can come up with to be honest. I don't think He really wanted us to be burdened with to many rules and regulations, which is why He gave us so few. In fact, it really does only boil down to 2 - love God and love others. If something you are doing is outside of those two, or outside of either one of them, then it is almost certainly sinful. If it fits in both, it is almost certainly right.

As to "Traditional marriage", for some people that doesn't seem possible. For someone who simply has no ability to be attracted to the opposite sex, should we expect them to remain celibate while so many Christians go through one marriage after another, claiming that it's OK because it is one man and one woman? I have seen Christians claim that their second marriage was actually because God sent their new partner to save them from a bad partner. Is that not against what Jesus taught?

If Christians had any integrity, they would fight against those who had a 2nd or more marriage (except where the first partner had died) with at least as much force as they do against homosexuals. After all, if two homosexual men are together for life with no other partner, they have followed the commandment much better than a Christian man who is on his 3rd wife, while the other two are still alive. And yet many would hold the man with many wives to be a good Christian while they celebrate his next marriage with him, while condemning even the celebate homosexual.

Please forgive my spelling, grammer, long-windedness and whatnot. It's 2:30am here and I am not normally awake at this time :-)

[David Chord]

Hi Judy..

And you are correct that more attention should be paid to the sexual sins of heterosexuals.

Something else I didn't intend.. What I'm trying to get across is we should deal with how a person is living overall. Things that prevent someone doing their bit for God, things that make someone look bad in the eyes of another, that sort of stuff, we should deal with and fight. Well, actually, isn't it supposed to be our Lord's battle? :-)

If it detracts from Him, it is a problem. If it stops someone serving Him, it is a problem. If someone can serve Him while gay or bi, should it be a problem? Lord knows the workers are few. Should we be driving away some of those who want to give their all to God, and telling them they're not worthy? What makes a straight person who is not willing to do God's work more worthy than a gay person who is?

However, it is of no help to you to go along with your rationalizations.

My "Rationalization" is that is is no longer an issue. I spent many years crying myself to sleep many nights, thinking of (and even getting to the point of attempting, bar for God's intervention) suicide, and worst of all, not achieving anywhere NEAR what God wanted for me all for one reason. Because I am not straight I cannot be worthy of God. Think about that please. I hear that so often. God does not want me because I am not straight. I am going to hell no matter what because I am not straight. I cannot serve God because I am not straight. So why should I bother to serve Him? Can you see where people who are gay or bi have a problem with what gets directed towards us?

All I want to do in this life is to serve God. It is my desire to be the most perfect servant He has ever had. He knows that. He has the ability to make me straight with far less effort that it takes me to think about hitting the space bar. Yet He has not taken this from me. He leaves me bisexual. Sometimes I think it's because, as a bi-sexual person, I have certain areas where I can walk and be welcome, and be listened to, while others will not even try. There are people I can reach who few other Christians will be able to.

Not that long ago God told me not to worry about it, that He will deal with it when He is ready. At some point (maybe around then but not sure) my eyes were opened to see that I was reaching people who were having problems, that I was being of use to God and to others because, as a person who is not straight, I could show people that Christians do not automatically judge someone (in fact, we should NEVER judge someone). I can show people that they are NOT condemned because they are not straight. And at times, that is a wonderful gift. It is something that very few others can do :-) A bi-sexual fundamentalist Christian is quite rare :-)

Oh, and yes. The anti-gay stuff does make it a LOT harder for me to reach people who aren't straight. They see Christians as an enemy who will try to shut them up and preventing them from having something of a reasonable life, or worse. Not as people who will bring them light, life, love, peace and happiness. Many people see the general Christian and their general view on homosexuality and they see darkness, hate, pain, and condemnation. That was never what Jesus was about, but that is how people make Christianity appear today. Sure, there are standards we should live up to. But how far should it go? Should our standards (which are sometimes higher that those Jesus set, and often infinitely higher than the person who set them lives up to) be to the detriment of the body? I know I am on real shaky ground when I say this. I don't mean at all that we should allow things that go to far, certainly not to the point of breaking any of the 10. But how far should we go? While we are called to higher things, we live in a fallen world. We can only reach those who are willing to be reached, and if we come at them with a big stick looking like we mean to beat them, they'll run far from us. If that same stick is shaped like a crutch, and looks like it is meant to help them up and get out of the situation they're in, they might be more receptive to what we have to say. Can you understand what I am trying to say here?. :-)

Don't forget what Jesus did when an adulteress was brought before Him. I believe under the laws of the day she was to be stoned to death. Under the religious laws that Jesus knew only to well. What did Jesus do? Did He throw the first stone, or did He send them packing, and accept the woman? Did He preach at her about her sins and how bad she was, or simply say "Go, and sin no more"?

How much time, resources, and even lives have been wasted on this matter? I'd much rather be saying something somewhere where the result will be someone is closer to salvation then in here. Actually, I'd rather be asleep but if I was to be writing, I'd rather it be to some non-Christian who needs to be saved, or to some Christian who is hurting in some other way. Yet here I am. I hope I can bring some change here that is good for the Kingdom. I don't come here to fight, or to attack, or anything like that. I come here to challenge people to question what is and isn't importance. What will bear fruit (esp the most important kind - Salvation!) and what won't. And maybe to challenge people - do we trust the Lord to be able to change a person once He has them, or must we try to guide them and kinda keep Him out of the picture because He only sets the overall rules, we do all the rest? (Sorry, not directed at anyone in particular since I don't really know anyone here, just something I have seen in Christianity and felt to comment on)

And if you are, as you describe it, bi-sexual, then surely it would be possible for you to direct your feelings in the correct direction, with God's help. I will keep you in my prayers.

I've cried and prayed for a wife for many years. I would love to have one. But maybe that is not what God wants for me. For now I seem to be doing a good job of remaining celibate, which I believe is what Paul taught was a good thing, was it not? :-)

But your prayers are appreciated :-)

Again, I am not pro-gay, I am not pro-bi. I am pro-Jesus and I am pro-getting people saved. And I am pro-not messing around with things that do more harm than good or waste valuable resouces :-)

God Bless,
David

[Judy Warner]

David,

If you are celibate nothing remains to be said. I think Bobby and I were both clear that it is your behavior rather than your desires that is the issue. I see no reason to condemn you in any way if you are living a celibate life and not encouraging anyone else in a homosexual lifestyle.

God calls some straight people to be celibate too. I am sure they struggle with that, as you are struggling. My prayers and my sympathy are with you.

[Stuart Koehl]

Dear David,

While one is not necessarily responsible for one's desires, one is responsible for one's behavior. Jesus founded an ekklesia, a con-greagation, a gathering together of those who love Him and have faith in Him. And Jesus said, "If you love me, you will follow my commandments". All fall short of that ideal, for all men sin constantly in thought and word and deed. But we are told that we must confess our sins to God, and go before Him with a contrite spirit. That means acknowledging when we do things that are contrary to God's will.

The Church that Christ founded teaches, and has always taught the following:

1. That sexual relations between human beings is a sacrament that is holy within the bonds of marriage and sinful in other situations.
2. That marriage is the union of one man and one woman before God, so that the two flesh become one.

Any deviation from that ideal is a falling short of the mark (hamartia), which is to say a sin that mars the image and likeness of God within us all. The degree of sin may vary, but the reality of sin does not. That we acknowledge our sin and try to do better is what God requires of us all. But to sin and then to deny that the sin is a sin, and in fact to elevate it to a virtue, is precisely the "sin against the Holy Spirit" which Christ himself said could never be forgiven.