Covenant College Fears Equality Ride

[revtj]

Hey gang,

This is a copy of a letter being sent out by Covenant College after learning of the SF ER coming to their campus. I am an alum. I would invite you to their website but it is open only to the elect. I had to beg them to let me in and they regret it...it's funny, the big concern they have is that donors will misunderstand the visit and they might lose money. They also seem to think that SF ER coming to their campus may make someone think it's a gay-is-ok place and we can't have that, now can we?

There are some rich donors and some powerhouses like D James Kennedy of Coral Ridge who are affiliated with the college. It would not surprise me if some of these people demand a very inhospitable response.

Here is their letter...


RE: Soulforce Equality Ride is comin' to Covenant Lookout Mountain, GA Covenant College]
Marshall Rowe '87

I am copying on here a letter which is going to be sent out in the morning so you are all ahead of the crowd on this. The letter is followed by a QandA sheet about the ride. I want to assure you that the decisions about this have come after a great deal of study of the organization and their practices and motives, numerous conversations with them and a great deal of prayer.


February 8, 2007


Dear Alumni,

Late last semester an organization called Soulforce (www.soulforce.org) contacted Covenant to say they would like to bring the Equality Ride (www.equalityride.com) to our campus. The Equality Ride is a national bus tour of college campuses sponsored by Soulforce to challenge policies that they claim discriminate against homosexuals. This group targets colleges and universities that maintain a biblically-based stance on the issue of homosexuality, as Covenant does, and attempts to generate negative media attention to these institutions.

We did not invite these visitors to our campus. However, based on the Equality Ride’s past actions and their statements to us recently, we know that they are coming to Covenant whether we grant them permission or not. Other institutions have refused them permission to visit their campuses, and the Equality Ride visited anyway. Equality Ride officials have told us directly that they plan to visit Covenant regardless of whether we grant them permission.

We presented the organization with a proposed Letter of Agreement, to be signed by both Covenant and Equality Ride officials. The Letter of Agreement stipulated guidelines and a schedule for their visit. The schedule included meetings with key administrators, faculty, and student leaders in a designated room, but not free access for the Equality Ride participants to roam campus and meet with anyone of their choosing.

We repeatedly asked that Soulforce accept our hospitality and respect our expectations by signing the Letter of Agreement. Equality Ride officials stated that, while they would agree to not enter residence halls or distribute literature, they would not agree to only meet with designated people in a designated room; they want unsupervised access to roam the campus and meet with any student or community member. Because the Equality Ride officials have chosen not to accept our offer, we are considering not allowing them on our campus. We regret that they have chosen this course of action.

Equality Ride officials have brought to our attention that they may find an off-campus location in the community where they will invite students and others to join them. Institutionally, we do not have control over what the group does away from Covenant’s campus or whether students visit the group at an off-campus location.

We will take every precaution to prepare our students, faculty, and staff for this visit so that they will be informed and able to make wise decisions.

Our policy is clear as it relates to a student’s sexual conduct. When students enroll at Covenant, they voluntarily sign the biblically-based Standards of Conduct (www.covenant.edu/standardsofconduct), agreeing to abstain from "sexual sins (such as premarital sex, adultery, homosexual behavior and the use or possession of obscene or pornographic material.)" We remain firmly committed to our biblically-based standards of sexuality.

In addition to communicating with you as an alum, we are also now contacting students, parents, faculty, staff, and our board of trustees to inform them of this event and our plans to manage it.

We ask that you join us in prayer as we seek wisdom to handle this situation responsibly and in a Christ-like manner. We are a community that teaches students what it means to be Christian servant-leaders. This is an opportunity for us to live that out.

Included with this letter is a question-and-answer document to provide you with further insight. If you have additional questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me at rowe@covenant.edu or call 706.419.1649.

Sincerely,

Marshall Rowe
Director of Alumni Relations


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING EQUALITY RIDE

1. Who is Soulforce, and what is the Equality Ride?
A: Soulforce (www.soulforce.org) is an organization whose stated purpose is to “promote freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance." The Equality Ride (www.equalityride.com) is a bus tour which will visit over 30 college campuses this year to promote Soulforce’s cause and beliefs. Most of these campuses are members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Now in its second year, the Equality Ride is sponsored by Soulforce, and claims to follow in the tradition of the freedom rides of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

2. Why is the Equality Ride coming to Covenant?
A: Covenant College is a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Covenant has been targeted by Soulforce as a campus to visit to promote the cause and beliefs of Soulforce and to challenge college policies that they consider to be anti-gay.

3. Did Covenant invite the Equality Ride to its campus?
A: No. Covenant did not invite the Equality Ride group to come to campus. The Equality Ride contacted Covenant and informed us of their intention to visit our campus on Monday, April 2.

4. How did Covenant respond to the Equality Ride?
A: After prayerful and careful consideration, we felt it best to allow the Equality Riders to visit, while placing guidelines on their visit. We believed this was an opportunity for us to embrace our visitors without condoning their lifestyles or beliefs. We presented the Equality Ride officials with a Letter of Agreement, which outlined a schedule for the day and guidelines. The Equality Ride officials, however, refused Covenant’s offer to have dialogue. We regret that they have made this decision and now must consider our response to them.

5. Will students be safe?
A: Providing a safe and secure environment is always a priority. We have a strong security plan that has been communicated to all personnel involved. We will also brief local law enforcement. Additionally, any groups that either oppose or support the Equality Ride will not be allowed on campus. We are considering not allowing the Equality Ride members to enter Covenant’s campus. Should they set up a gathering at an off-campus location, we will encourage students to make wise decisions.

6. What is Covenant's stance on homosexuality?
A: Our policy is clear as it relates to a student’s sexual conduct while enrolled at Covenant. When students enroll at Covenant College, they voluntarily sign the biblically-based Standards of Conduct (www.covenant.edu/standardsofconduct), agreeing to abstain from "sexual sins (such as premarital sex, adultery, homosexual behavior and the use or possession of obscene or pornographic material.)" Covenant’s policy on human sexuality is based on the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

7. Is Covenant considering changing its policies?
A: No. Covenant is not changing its policies. Our policies are biblically-based and in keeping with the historical position of the Church and current laws governing private colleges and universities.

8. How does Covenant help students who may be struggling with these issues?
A: Covenant provides trained Resident Assistants and Resident Directors along with other caring Student Development staff, faculty, coaches and staff who seek to come alongside students in their struggles. Additionally, licensed counselors are available on campus for students struggling with any personal issue. These counselors are willing to provide ample support to students who may struggle with a wide array of personal issues. Covenant will also refer students to outside resources in Chattanooga and the surrounding areas in order to get students the assistance they need.

[dsdrane]

Uff da! :rolleyes:

It's not much, but I will say the letter was one of the more evenly and, dare I say, diplomatically drafted I personally have ever seen coming from an institution like this.

Small comfort, given the context, but certainly noteworthy in the realm of civil discourse.

I'll be following this one....:pray:

David

[keltic63]

the gays are coming! the gays are coming! :hissy: :hissy: :hissy: :hissy:

[revtj]

Jamie or Jeff or whomever...

Can you enlighten us as to the Letter of Agreement Covenant asked SF to sign ? Was Marshall's relating of that process fairly stated?

[nmwolfboy]

5. Will students be safe?

So long as they aren't glbt themselves, apparently so. That presumably goes doubly for college faculty & staff. Most importantly, the college's policies will be kept safe.

Revtj, i believe you're correct. The subtext of this letter is about protecting college donations.

i'm frequently amazed at how frightened supposed faith-based authorities can get when they're confronted with the gays that are at the door or in their midst. i mean, if they really do believe what they say they believe, where is the courage of their convictions? Where is the faith? Where is Christ's love?

[revtj]

Yeah, I think it's money 1st, their version of Christ (who is captured perfectly for them in the Westminster Confession of Faith) whenever...

I got my Annual Report from the president of Covenant a few weeks ago and wanted to vomit when I saw Archer Daniels Midland is a major donor. There was even "testimony" from an ADM corporate exec about his born-again life. You know, like the Enron guy who thanked Jesus Christ after his trial...ADMs' corruption, tax evasion, and pure screw-the-consumer greed is well-documented and known. Just google it for hours of capitalism gone awry...repugnant!

Suffice it to say, I have realized for some time now that Covenant College, with it's $137 million endowment, cannot worship Christ and mammon. We all know who usually wins that contest...

:dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar: :dollar:

[scorpiogirl]

Number 5 kills me....it's like they think the riders are coming to convert the students or something! :lol: :rolleyes:

[scorpiogirl]

I believe the word they use is "recruit" They are afraid the riders will "recruit" them to the "life style":rolleyes:

Ugh...people and their strange logic never cease to amaze me!

[Daniel]

Hello Coveant College! Gay people are everywhere. As a graduate of Evangel College, I personally know of 8 gay men who were members of the concert choir there during my time in school and would lay odds that you have your share of gay persons in you own music program.

God loves his gay children. They are blessed as you are blessed.

[Daniel]

There he goes "recruiting" tenors for the Gay Men's Chorus! These Homos are all the same !! :borg:

Recruiting? I wish!

When I was in school I might have been in a convent! Though it was interesting to learn, after I found myself in touch this past year with 4 former classmates of Evangel's Concert Choir (odd that.....all of us getting in touch during the same period after so many years), that they were doing their share of 'recruiting' when in school. :lol:

[revtj]

Actually I am looking for something to post on the Covenant College alum website...

Does anybody remember a poster from maybe 10 yrs ago that began with the word "Because..." and then it listed many reasons to support gay rights?

I think it was modeled after an earlier statement on women's equality.

It said many things like "...if we are in relationships we are promiscuous but if we ask for marriage equality we are asking for 'special rights,' etc.

I googled for over an hour but can't find it. I had it in post card form but have no idea where it is now.

Any old geezers like me out there who remember it & can get the text to me?

[revtj]

SEE ABOVE POST...Does anybody remember a poster from maybe 10 yrs ago that began with the word "Because..." and then it listed many reasons to support gay rights?

I am starting to feel like an out-of-the-loop old man, here!

[kara speltz]

SEE ABOVE POST...Does anybody remember a poster from maybe 10 yrs ago that began with the word "Because..." and then it listed many reasons to support gay rights?

I am starting to feel like an out-of-the-loop old man, here!

Dear TJ: I don't remember the poster, but I do have a really excellent piece on how homophobia hurts straight folks, that may be of some help in responding. Kara

TEN WAYS HOMOPHOBIA AFFECTS STRAIGHT PEOPLE


1. Homophobia forces us to act "macho" if we are a man or "feminine"
if we are a woman. This limits our individuality and self-
expression.


2. Homophobia puts pressure on straight people to act aggressively
and angrily towards LGBTQ people.


3. Homophobia makes it hard to be close friends with someone of the
same sex.

4. Homophobia often strains family and community relationships.


5. Homophobia causes youth to become sexually active before they are
ready in order to prove they are "normal." This can lead to an
increase in unwanted pregnancies and STDs.


6. Homophobia prevents vital information on sex and sexuality to be
taught in schools. Without this information, youth are putting
themselves at a greater risk for HIV and other STDs.


7. Homophobia can be used to hurt a straight person if they "appear
to be gay."


8. Homophobia makes it hard for straight people and LGBTQ people to
be friends.


9. Homophobia along with racism, sexism, classism, etc. makes it
hard to put an end to AIDS.


10. Homophobia makes it hard to appreciate true diversity and the
unique traits that are not mainstream or "normal."

[revtj]

Thanks, Kara!:p

[revtj]

BECAUSE...


Gay men and lesbians are discriminated against in housing and

employment

AND because how we act is more important than who we are

AND if we get harassed it's our problem

AND if we get attacked we provoked it

AND if we raise our voices we're flaunting ourselves

AND if we enjoy sex we're perverts

AND if we have AIDS we deserve it

AND if we march with pride we're recruiting children

AND if we want or have children we're unfit parents

AND if we stand up for our rights we're overstepping our boundaries

AND because we are forced constantly to question our own worth as human beings

AND if we don't have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex we haven't given it a chance

AND if we have a relationship with someone of the same sex it is not recognized

AND we are told our love is not "real"

AND if we come out of the closet we're just going through a phase

AND because lesbian and gay history is virtually absent from literature

AND because homophobia is sanctioned by the courts

AND....for lots and lots of other reasons,

I AM A PART OF THE LESBIAN & GAY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

[revtj]

I've stopped posting on Covenant's alum website because it's useless. But I have something to get off my chest, so can I share it with you here?

On the Covenant website, many alums are criticizing any analogy between gay civil rights and African American civil rights. The threads are full of sarcasm and bitter analogies that essentially mock Soulforce and our quest through the Equality Rides. One snappy poster has started emailing Equality Riders, making "friends" with them, and then posting what she sees as the non-biblical and ridiculous ideas they are sharing with her.

This same person threatened me with violence on the alum blog and I reported it to the police on Lookout Mountain.

So, in the interest of letting me blow off some steam, here's what I can't say to her...

You want credit because you talk to gay people? Because you like some of them and even exchange emails with them?

We had a Black maid when I was growing up in the Deep South. We loved her dearly. But I was taught, and the whole community believed she was inferior. Many of her own people accepted that they were inferior. It was a Christian assumption and many people used the bible to defend it. I didn't know any better because I was a child and it would be in college that I would question segregation & Jim Crow.

Gay people are telling you we won't be your pets any more. It is not true that you can say you love us and still deny equality under the law to us. We don't care what you find in the bible, we want full citizenship, no more Jim Crow, no more, "you're disordered but I like you" crap.

If you think I'm going to hell and you're not, then true love is NOT possible between us, unless you are Jesus Christ. Don't say you love someone you've condemned to hell. Be honest. You hate them because they won't be like you, do like you say, act like you want them to act.

Stop making "friends" with us so you can gather information to mock us with, prove us not christian or not biblical. It's insincere and it certainly isn't love.

There. I feel better. Thank you.

[keltic63]

revtj, have you been able to contact the ERiders and let them know that this person is using their email communications to ridicule them on the covenant alum website?

[revtj]

No, I haven't. My emails to Joey & Jarret haven't been answered yet. Undoubtedly they are very preoccupied. I don't know for sure who this person is emailing, there's no telling...I am still planning to go up there with them on April 2nd. Also we're having a big fundraiser for them when they pass through Atlanta on their way back from B'ham. I am praying so much for them, I think about them constantly...

[revtj]

In a conference call with Jarret and Joey I was told that initially Covenant's president welcomed them without qualification to come to the campus. He then passed the matter on to administrative staff, including the alumni director. They had several more phone conversations and later added restrictions to where the Riders could go and what they could do; when the Riders resisted this, they were told they would be arrested. Then, the alum director released the letter I posted above, not admitting that the decision to arrest them has already been made. I don't think any students at Covenant realize the decision to arrest has already been made.

I know the College well enough to know they feared losing money from donors. Any hospitality at all to a group like Soulforce would get them in trouble with some of their far-right wealthy constituents. I love the place, but I can tell you, they serve God and mammon, and they do it fabulously.

There has been a lot of conversation on campus apparently, including a campus wide meeting and an editorial from the student government (http://www.bagpipeonline.com/index.php?path=/archives/000596.php) in their school newspaper, The Bagpipe. I think it is fair to say the students are divided, with the majority preferring to just let Soulforce come visit.

I cannot tell you exactly why they Riders refused the restrictions that were later placed on them. All I know is that Covenant's administration played it up that Riders would be going in the dorms, lurking in the showers, and going around in the gym locker room. The ewww factor works very well as we all know.

The major problem to be faced at Covenant is that it is on top of a mountain, Lookout Mountain. There are almost NO shoulders on the roads, just cliffs and drop-offs. So, if the bus doesn't pull into the campus parking lot, it will be dangerous if not impossible to park on the side of the road. I assume they plan to pull in the parking lot out of necessity.

[tdogg]

On the Covenant website, many alums are criticizing any analogy between gay civil rights and African American civil rights. The threads are full of sarcasm and bitter analogies that essentially mock Soulforce and our quest through the Equality Rides.
There was a day when they would have mocked African American civil rights efforts in the name of God. They just forget about that day.

If you think I'm going to hell and you're not, then true love is NOT possible between us, unless you are Jesus Christ. Don't say you love someone you've condemned to hell. Be honest. You hate them because they won't be like you, do like you say, act like you want them to act.
Stop making "friends" with us so you can gather information to mock us with, prove us not christian or not biblical. It's insincere and it certainly isn't love.
Amen and Amen!


So, it comes down to the money once again - the prospect of losing donor funds. Seems like a common fear amongst those who consider themselves the "fundamental christian right". Can't risk losing the money.

[tdogg]

I should have clarified, that I meant they were mocking the efforts and mocking them in the name of God. Sad.

[tdogg]

A truly feel a lot of it is ignorance, maybe not on the part of those instigating things such as the Covenant letter, but if not on their part, certainly there actions are done in large part to continue the ignorance on the part of those who may not know better. Or, choose not to know better.

Anyway, ignorance does play a big part in this whole mess. And in that regard, the brainwashing helps to perpetuate the ignorance (maybe that was what I was trying to say in the above paragraph!)

[revtj]

http://www.bagpipeonline.com/index.php?path=/archives/000639.php

Found it!

[ml1]

My name is Michael. I am a regular poster on the Covenant Alumni website. I joined as a member on THIS site so I could verify if some things said about TJ and his posts were true or not. Sadly, they are.

1. The forums at the Covenant site are by no means "full of sarcasm" as he stated. There is much rhetoric used (tongue in cheek sarcasm - not childish sarcasm - or pointed questions meant to emphasize their obvious answers). Please note that TJ's earlier posts on the Covenant site WERE very sarcastic and were meant to incite negative responses. He has been MUCH more effective recently as he has toned down his sarcasm and vitriol. In fact, I was looking forward to many of his posts in the last month or two (until now).
2. While it may be true (??) that Covenant is afraid of their donors' responses, that is probably a twisting of the truth. Keep in mind that Covenant was formed by and is under the umbrella of a very conservative denomination. So OF COURSE the donors are conservative. I would ask TJ what specifically he is referring to?
3. The equality ride group requested that they be made "guests" in Covenant's "house." When Covenant responded by saying, "Yes, you may be guests, but need to abide by our rules" SF responded by saying "No, we don't want to abide by your rules." Doesn't Covenant have the right to then close its door to the riders? If the administrator of this site doesn't like MY post, doesn't he have the right to delete it? If I came on your bus and started preaching things you don't agree with, wouldn't you have the right to deny me access?
4. In a recent letter to the students (last few days), the students are actually ENCOURAGED to interact in a Godly fashion with the SF members. It will just have to be off-campus since SF refuses to abide by the rules. Covenant was even planning on supplying boxed lunches to the riders (maybe still IS planning?).
5. Most of the folks I have interacted with in person (and I would say on the Covenant forums also) would say that SF members CAN be Christians. We would also, however, say that we disagree on our views of and interpretation of the Bible. Most would say that we think homosexuality is sinful, but is no more or less of a sin than any other. We are ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of God. This is the crux of the matter. You have probably all heard the saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I think most, if not all, of the posters on the Covenant site would agree with that. We would probably all agree that homosexuals have as much value in God's eyes as do we.
6. No one at Covenant is putting fear in the students minds that SF members will be "hiding in their showers" etc.etc. That is purely ludicrous.

All I ask, TJ, is that you be constructive in your posts here and on the Covenant site, treat Covenant and the Alumni HONESTLY, and quit instilling fear in the SF member's minds about Covenant.

For all of you, if you have ever recognized yourself as a sinner, repented from your sin, and relied on Christ to be your justification - then I greet you as a fellow believer. Our only disagreement is on whether or not your lifestyle is sinful.

Thank you,
Michael

[ml1]

I failed to mention in my earlier post that NOWHERE on the Covenant site has anyone threatened violence either against TJ or against the SF activists. There is one girl, "C", who after being called a hateful person etc etc by TJ said that if he ever implied she was hateful again she would personally go down to Atlanta and "bite his head off." Now, TJ, if you think she meant that literally, then I suspect you have other issues than activism to focus on. I DID modify my picture on the Covenant site so it looks like someone took a chunk out of my head (PLAYFUL sarcasm...). :-)

[ml1]

TJ - please copy and paste for the sake of this forum where you, SF, or homosexuals were "mocked."

Please note that TJ will be unable to comply with this request (as there was no mocking going on).

[ml1]

I want to apologize if my above posts sound like I am attacking TJ. I actually like the guy - we have the same sense of humor and frighteningly, for one or both of us, some of the same thought processes (I say that playfully). Since I am in "SF's HOUSE" right now, I will try to more closely abide by your rules so as not to be a hypocrite.

[keltic63]

I want to apologize if my above posts sound like I am attacking TJ. I actually like the guy - we have the same sense of humor and frighteningly, for one or both of us, some of the same thought processes (I say that playfully). Since I am in "SF's HOUSE" right now, I will try to more closely abide by your rules so as not to be a hypocrite.

There's an "edit" feature if you'd care to "rephrase" any of your posts ;)

To my Soulforce friends: I have explained to ml1 that many of us are more than willing to engage in dialogue about soulforce activities, their effectiveness, and our varying levels of comfort with those actions. I've told him that we are able to look at our own opinions critically, and if necessary, respectfully disagree! I KNOW that you will demonstrate this in your exchanges with him!

[ml1]

Hi-
I will not edit the previous posts I made - although I did go back & change a misspelling or 2.
My purpose in the posts was to defend Covenant against what I saw as a dishonest representation of the school. Covenant alumni, and I would say conservatives in general, no more deserve to be stereotyped as "hateful, "fearful," or "bigotted" than do homosexuals as "perverted," "flaming," etc. (Even if there ARE individuals that meet the discriptions on both sides). ESPECIALLY if we are all Christians interested in dialogue. I really hope some good dialogue occurs with the ER'ers.

[antonyh]

Covenant alumni, and I would say conservatives in general, no more deserve to be stereotyped as "hateful, "fearful," or "bigotted" than do homosexuals as "perverted," "flaming," etc. (Even if there ARE individuals that meet the discriptions on both sides). ESPECIALLY if we are all Christians interested in dialogue. I really hope some good dialogue occurs with the ER'ers.


First of all, the words "hateful", "fearful" and "bigoted" attack the *behavior* of some conservatives, whereas, the words "perverted" and "flaming" attacks the *core being* of another person. That said, I agree, stereotypes are not helpful.

Since I graduated from Covenant Theological Seminary (also PCA), I thought I would make a few comments. While I was there I thought that Covenant made a genuine attempt to understand and be compassionate about homosexuality. But at the end of the day the only option available to a gay Christian was to be a repentant, celibate homosexual.

The PCA's position is best encapsulated by this sermon by Ron Lutjens available at Covenant Theological Seminary's Website:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Lutjens_TwoLostSons.mp3

I fail to see how conversation is going to occur if the only option you offer gay Christians is repentance and celibacy. Please enlighten me on this one. Are there other options for us or am I missing something?

As far as your beef with revtj, instead of focusing on defending Covenant's honor, maybe you should take a step back and ask, "What have we done?" His anger and hurt over his experience at your school is the legacy that Covenant College has left in his life.

Maybe when Soulforce visits, Covenant College could start out with a prayer of repentance.

"Our Father, forgive us for the spiritual violence that we have caused generations of gay and lesbian students at our college."

To be fair to the PCA and Covenant Theological Seminary, I would also like to reference Jerram Barrs' free online course in Apologetics & Outreach where he rigorously critiques Evangelical Christians and their approach to the culture. Lecture 9 titled "Post Modernism & The Culture War" would be a fantastic model for Covenant College to consider as they anticipate the arrival of the Equality Riders.

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC310/CC310.asp

It looks like the student body of Covenant College want to live the model advocated in the lecture above.

http://www.bagpipeonline.com/index.php?path=/archives/000639.php

[revtj]

I regard Soulforce as a safe space where I can post amongst people who are in sympathy with the stated mission of Soulforce.

I have not misrepresented my feelings and experiences of postings on Covenant's alumni site. I do not consider it a safe space, and I do not see my experience in the forums as resembling the real tenor of Covenant College. Several alums who knew me when we were students have emailed me to tell me they love me and always will. This is precious to me.

If I have given anyone the impression that I was trying to engage an argument over homosexuality in which somebody "wins" and somebody else "loses" then I regret not choosing better words. I was hoping to tell my story and offer my reasons and experience which led me to be the chaplain and human rights advocate that I am by the grace of God today.

I do not apologize for telling of my experience as a gay christian and questioning the underlying assumptions that make it impossible for some christians to truly love a gay person, to take a stand for equality under the law for gay people, and to demand that their churches speak out clearly and loudly against the violence done against LGBT people.

Finally, I need to say that when somebody types in all caps, "I'm going to come to Atlanta and bite your head off" I consider that a violent threat, and I do worry, considering the college educated the man who killed John Lennon, and the denomination was once a home to Rev. Paul Hill who shot and killed a women's doctor, that I may be dealing with someone who would act out on their rage against me. I am not at all out of line in seeking to protect myself from that kind of person.

The Covenant College I knew was full of fun, kind, loving, warm, sincere christian people. I believe it still is, and I hope these are the people who continue to set the example on campus and among alumni. Ulimately, I wish the denomination and the community would come to a place where it could simply embrace me in unconditional love without qualification.

Do you realize that if all I had said was that I fantasize about sex with women, I would be completely normal and acceptable to Covenant? They might even invite me to speak in chapel since the work I do is entirely kosher to their standards. Picture me as alumni of the year -- oh, wait, no way, he's homo.

Grace and Peace to all of you who read this whether you are here because you truly support Soulforce or you just want to get my goat...God's grace is better than that and the peace Christ offers can reconcile us if you are willing.

[Emproph]

All I ask, TJ, is that you be constructive in your posts here and on the Covenant site, treat Covenant and the Alumni HONESTLY, and quit instilling fear in the SF member's minds about Covenant.

“Honestly” Michael, your post confirms more of the “fears” about Covenant College than anything revtj has said.

3. The equality ride group requested that they be made "guests" in Covenant's "house." When Covenant responded by saying, "Yes, you may be guests, but need to abide by our rules" SF responded by saying "No, we don't want to abide by your rules."

Anyone can make such a claim about anything ("they said, we said"). In case you haven't noticed, we consider ourselves to be an oppressed minority around here, and tend to appreciate it very much if and when you possibly could/would clarify the context of the quotes you offer.

No foul per se, it just seems that there should be more explanation to that. A link perhaps, or a simple "as I previously stated elsewhere," etc.

That said, are these the rules you speak of?
“They said that they would trespass,” said Allen.
Covenant invited Soul Force to talk with staff and faculty members and student leaders, which they rejected.
“They asked for dialogue,” said Allen. “We offered this, and they said ‘No.’” link (http://www.bagpipeonline.com/index.php?path=/archives/000596.php)

Contrast with: (http://www.soulforce.org/article/1100)
The Equality Ride is love in action, movement towards reconciliation. Candid testimony softens hearts. Humble words change guarded minds. And audacious young activists humanize an abstract issue. The Ride exemplifies a spirit of change that is long overdue.

One cannot effectively humanize an issue with those who are monitarily motivated to teach it as an abstract.

If those are the rules you speak of, then it seems to me that the Equality Ride rejected the Covenant College having FIRST rejected any meaningful dialogue to begin with. It's tantamount to accusing the ER of rejecting "dialogue" with those who are least likely to listen (The faculty and student leaders under their rule).

To render the visit virtually useless and then accuse Soulforce of rejection, I find to be a particuarly disingenuous characterization of events. Again, I could be wrong, please let me know. Point being the importance of clarification.
~~
[3. continued]Doesn't Covenant have the right to then close its door to the riders? If the administrator of this site doesn't like MY post, doesn't he have the right to delete it? If I came on your bus and started preaching things you don't agree with, wouldn't you have the right to deny me access?
Clearly God gave them that right, so I'm still lost on why they're arguing for it..

Considering your hypothetical, we/SF may have the legal right, but if we were claiming to be Christians and were also promoting Genocide for Jesus in the same way that you are:
leviticus 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:13&version=31)
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
..then we no longer have the ethical "right" to deny access to your concerns. Indeed, we would have the Christian obligation to show you how our belief in murdering our neighbor is consistent with our belief that we should "love our neighbor as ourself."

We would also have the obligation to show how this particular Biblical "consistency" regarding homosexuality does not apply to all the other Biblical sins that equally require the death penalty, like adultery (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1958) and idolatry.

Unless of course you wish to make the claim that man's law trumps God's law, as long as it's on private property. Do you care to make this claim?
If I came on your bus and started preaching things you don't agree with, wouldn't you have the right to deny me access?
Such a statement shows me only that you perceive victim and oppressor to be equal. Specifically that the complaint of oppression is equal to the oppression itself.

I recognize that you disagree with this characterization, the point is that you made no effort to clarify that you understand the reason for such a characterization, lending credence to your role as oppressor, in that you don't care enought to even know why your victim feels the way they do.
~~
5. Most of the folks I have interacted with in person (and I would say on the Covenant forums also) would say that SF members CAN be Christians. We would also, however, say that we disagree on our views of and interpretation of the Bible. Most would say that we think homosexuality is sinful, but is no more or less of a sin than any other. We are ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of God. This is the crux of the matter. You have probably all heard the saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I think most, if not all, of the posters on the Covenant site would agree with that. We would probably all agree that homosexuals have as much value in God's eyes as do we.
~~
5. Most of the folks I have interacted with in person (and I would say on the Covenant forums also) would say that SF members CAN be Christians.

I am not a Christian? You consider yourself to be in a position to determine for Jesus/God, my relationship with Jesus/God? You – and those on the Covenant forum – speak for Jesus'/God's relationship with me? You speak for Jesus/God?

By all means, clarify.

We would also, however, say that we disagree on our views of and interpretation of the Bible.
What views and what interpretations are you ALREADY CERTAIN OF that we all here at Soulforce disagree on with you? You have about 4 posts to your name on this website and you're claiming to speak for how every single member here disagrees with you?

Most would say that we think homosexuality is sinful, but is no more or less of a sin than any other[/b].
So "most would say" that having a committed consensual love relationship with someone of the same gender is "no more or less" sinful than stabbing someone to death?

If that isn't the epitome of moral relativism I don't know what is.

We are ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of God. This is the crux of the matter. You have probably all heard the saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I think most, if not all, of the posters on the Covenant site would agree with that. We would probably all agree that homosexuals have as much value in God's eyes as do we.

"We are ALL sinners"
"love the sinner, hate the sin"
"homosexuals have as much value in God's eye's as do we."
"homosexuality is sinful, but is no more or less of a sin than any other"

To clarify that we are "ALL" sinners, with reference to a specific sin, is to clarify only the distinction you perceive between your sin and that of others. Which fervently nullifies your proposition that homosexuality is somehow equal to your own sinfulness. And thus, you – as OPPOSED to homosexuals – are in a position to claim that all sin is equal. LIAR.

You're trying to have it both ways. You think homosexuality is a worse sin than whatever your sins are but don't want anyone to know that you think so. You portray yourself as a believer of "judge not lest ye be judged," in order to portray your own judgement as non-judgemental.

It's nothing more than the claim that you feel you're in a better position to recognize sin than homosexuals are. The only mitigating factor being the fact that you are a heterosexual. Logically speaking, it is your attraction to women, in and of itself, that you feel gives you the superior ability to recognize sin.

Anyone can claim a third party -- in this case the Bible -- as their "reasoning" (assumption) source. So what is it specifically, that you personally have found about your attraction to women that makes you have a better understanding of morality?

I really don't care how offensive your actual beliefs may or may not be to me in principle, I just don't like being lied to. To claim that you're equally sinful to me as though this is something I don't know, only confirms for me that you think you are in a position to state such and I am not. CLEARLY, YOU DO NOT CONSIDER US EQUALLY SINFUL!

All I'm asking is that you not lie about it. Or do you not think lying is immoral?
~~
6. No one at Covenant is putting fear in the students minds that SF members will be "hiding in their showers" etc.etc. That is purely ludicrous.
I wouldn't say "purely ludicrous."
Voyles said that a main concern is that the Equality Riders could put students in “compromising positions,” by misconstruing pictures on Facebook or simple gestures, like a hug. link (http://www.bagpipeonline.com/index.php?path=/archives/000596.php)

What the hell is "miscronstruing pictures on facebook" supposed to even mean? The ambiguity of such a statement alone is insulting.

Or "misconstruing...simple gestures, like a hug?"

What that says to me is that Covenant College is saying that Equality Riders – and therefore ALL homosexual persons – will think that hugs, or any other form of innocuous physical contact, will automatically perceive it to be a sexual gesture.

The promotion of such a reprehensible, disgusting and unacceptable bigoted hateful stereotype on the part of COVENANT COLLEGE is the entire PURPOSE of the the Equality Ride. To help dispell the notion that same-sex attraction equals a total and complete obsession with same-sex sex.

If you can explain that statement better, then please do, because I am vilified to the core by such a depiction of me as a human being. As though because somebody shakes my hand or smiles at me that they're coming on to me, how stupid do you think I am?

Maybe you should be honest about answering that question. I can at least respect an offensive answer to my face. What I don't respect is the dishonest implication of my stupidity without qualification.
~~
For all of you, if you have ever recognized yourself as a sinner, repented from your sin, and relied on Christ to be your justification - then I greet you as a fellow believer. Our only disagreement is on whether or not your lifestyle is sinful.

Thank you,
Michael

I eat, sleep, breathe, and desire to love and be loved like every other human being on this planet. For you to define this as a sinful "lifestyle"* and apply it only to those like me, IS sinful. There is little that I find more bigoted and hateful than the arrogance to define bigotry and hatred like this as Christian love.

You haven't quantified your ability to define my life as being more behavior based than your own, let alone the implication that it is specifically more sexually based than your own. What stikes me is that you obviously don't care to do so, yet you did care enough to share your bigoted hateful rhetoric down our throats without having researched the issue, or even just simply asking first – so that at least you could have parsed your words and meaning better.

Like I said, I can respect beliefs, but I don't respect lies. You haven't established credibility yet. If you want to do so you need to establish that your beliefs meet this criteria:

Truth requires logic
The truth of logic requires consistency
Consistency is the most important aspect in the determination of truth.Without that, your Beliefs are nothing more than idolatry, in that you've decided what God said or meant. If you do this then your beliefs bear false witness against us – whether or not they are true.
~~
If you need to break the commandments of your own religion in order to practice it, then homosexuals aren't the one's with the problem.
~~
*And by all means – We're adults here – While you're enjoying the facilities, please feel free to ask about our "homosexual agenda™," on sale now for only...


And the irony of the sardonism of that statement is what it really comes down to.

"Anti-Homosexual" is perceived by those like you to be a part of your Identity.

Who are we to confront you on your promotion of hatred for us? It's who you are.

Who am I to judge?
~~

For the record, I'm not judging you, I'm judging your unwillingness to tell the truth about you. Perhaps you don't need to admit to hatred, but I need some serious answers if you want me to take you seriously as someone who claims to have Christian values. This is important to me.

[Zerbie]

M


5. Most of the folks I have interacted with in person (and I would say on the Covenant forums also) would say that SF members CAN be Christians. We would also, however, say that we disagree on our views of and interpretation of the Bible.

Most would say that we think homosexuality is sinful, but is no more or less of a sin than any other. We are ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of God. This is the crux of the matter. You have probably all heard the saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I think most, if not all, of the posters on the Covenant site would agree with that. We would probably all agree that homosexuals have as much value in God's eyes as do we.
6t.

For all of you, if you have ever recognized yourself as a sinner, repented from your sin, and relied on Christ to be your justification - then I greet you as a fellow believer. Our only disagreement is on whether or not your lifestyle is sinful.

Thank you,
Michael

Michael, try reading what I write below and see how it strikes you. How much sense does it make to say?:

* Most SF members believe that Covenant College Students and alumni CAN be Christians. Most believe that while heterosexuality is sinful, it is no worse than any other sin. That heterosexuals have just as much value in God's eyes as the rest of us.
Michael, even though you are a heterosexual, you are still loved by God and can still be a Christian. Our only disagreement is on whether or not your lifestyle is sinful. *

Weird, ain't it?

It is no less bizarre applied to gay people than it sounds when applied to straight people. It truly is as simple as that.

[Rick336]

Zerbie says: "Weird, ain't it?

It is no less bizarre applied to gay people than it sounds when applied to straight people. It truly is as simple as that."

Excellent point Zerbie. :tup:


Rick

[ml1]

I wish I knew how to do the little gray box quote-thingy y'all do. But I don't, so bear with me as I copy and paste quotes.

For the record, I will not be an unwelcome poster here. Since I am on SF's site, please let me know if I go overboard in any posts I make (as you have done above).

TJ - I still think you know "C" better than to take her "bite your head off" (even in all caps) as a literal threat of physical violence. She MAY (or may not) have meant she really would confront you for labeling her as ...whatever it was you labeled her as, but she is not a violent person. People use "bite your head off" all the time to mean "snap at" or "harshly correct." For instance, "My boss bit my head off the other day for being late to work" does not mean my boss physically abused me.


EMPROPH ASKED: "I am not a Christian? You consider yourself to be in a position to determine for Jesus/God, my relationship with Jesus/God? You – and those on the Covenant forum – speak for Jesus'/God's relationship with me? You speak for Jesus/God?"
My quote "...homosexuals CAN be Christians," can apparently have different interpretations than what I meant it as, and has caused you some offense. I apologize for the offense. First, keep in mind that I was defending against the stereotype that 100% of conservatives think homosexuality and Christianity are 100% incompatible. While there ARE conservatives (unfortunately) that point at homosexuality and rate it as a "worse" sin than other sins, my point was that I don't think most of the posters on the Covenant site do so. I was NOT saying that SF members are not Christians. My capitalized "CAN" was not saying 'could be but are not.' It WAS trying to say that there SHOULD BE in the conservative's view the possiblity that somone we view as sinning (in this case a homosexual) is still a Chrisitian. Keep in mind that PCA doctrine says that once someone has truly accepted Christ into their lives, they can not lose their salvation. So where some Christians would say a sinning Christian has "backslidden" and lost their salvation, PCA'rs would say they are still saved, and that God WILL work (and promises to work) to bring them back into a proper relationship with Him. SO ... my point actually agrees with yours. We at Covenant should NOT across the board say that SF members are not Christians.


EMPROPH asks: "What views and what interpretations are you ALREADY CERTAIN OF that we all here at Soulforce disagree on with you?"

First, the number of posts I have MADE is irrelevant. The number of posts I have READ is relevant to what I think SF members (in general) believe. But that aside...

While I certainly can not speak for EVERYONE on this site, based on TJ's better dialogue on the Covenant site and what I have read in the other forums here, I can say the following things are "disagreements" between the Covenant folks (in general) and SF'rs (in general):

1. SF members generally do not believe the Bible to be written by God through his instruments of Man. They believe godly men wrote it. There IS a difference.
2. SF members do not understand part of PCA doctrine as regards the Old Testemant, therefore part of their logic is invalid. I will address this below.
3. SF members do not believe that the Bible is completely applicable to moderne society - rather, it should be interpreted in light of current societal norms and cultures.

If the Bible is WRITTEN by God, has been PRESERVED by God (as he promised in the Bible to do), and is 100% applicable to moderne society, then one of the results is that everything in the Bible that is called "sin" must therefore be "sin." Does that logic make sense? Any disagreement with those 3 points gets in the way of ever coming to a consensus.

In #2 above I mentioned that SF'rs do not have a good grasp of part of the PCA's doctrine. Emproph states over a couple of paragraphs that for PCA'rs to be consistant, they would have to stone adulterers, etc. I have seen that argument many times. TJ used it on the Covenant site, and I think it is mentioned on this site over in the theology thread under "Is the Bible against homosexuality" thread. Here is the answer:

The Bible has 3 types of law, two of which were overridden by Christ:

1. Ceremonial Law - written specifically for the Jews predating Christ and governing exactly HOW they were to worship God. It dealt with things that were "clean" and "unclean." One example is Passover. They were to slaughter an unblemished lamb that would act as the recipient for the guilt of the sins of the family. From a NT perspective, this was pointing to the final sacrifice of the Pure Lamb of God, Christ. So the OT Jews were not saved by the animal itself, but rather by their faith in a symbol of something to come. This Ceremonial law was abolished or made irrelevant once Christ was sacrificed for us. He came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." In other words, modern Christians no longer have to follow the OT ceremonies to worship God.

2. Moral Law - Basically, the "moral intent" of both the OT and the NT. The ten commandments, the 'golden rule,' etc. This law still applies, and is consistant between the testaments. Adultery is bad in both. So is lying, stealing, dishonoring our parents, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. This was NOT abolished by Christ.

3. Judicial Law - The Judicial Law was basically the governmental regulations given by God for the Nation of Israel. It was how they were to react to every situation. This is where the whole stoning of adulterers thing comes in. Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow. This is why his reaction to the whore who was to be stoned was to say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

SO ... no, conservatives DON'T have to stone adulterers to be consistant with calling adultery sinful. Does that satisfactorily answer your question? I know you may not agree with it, but that is where I am coming from.

Now, this one will be a little more touchy. Various posters are correct in thinking that in general, PCA'rs don't agree with equating the homosexual rights movement with the racial movement of a few decades ago. Please note that on the Covenant site there are at least 2 regular posters other than TJ that take SF's "side" on this. But here are some of the thought processes:
1. Blacks were brought against their will to America and were bought, sold, traded as animals. While homosexuals WERE kept "in the closet" and WERE "hated" by some, I don't think it is fair to compare the two.

2. Then blacks went through segregation: They had no voting rights. They had separate water fountains. Schools, buses, restaurants, even some churches had "white only" sections and "negro" sections. While somewhere, sometime, I am sure homosexuals have been removed from restaurants or a church, is it really fair to compare what discrimination there has been against homosexuals to the heavily institutionalized (even governmentally standardized) repression of blacks? Have you ever been kept from voting? Have you seen a sign in a window of a restaurant saying, "no gays!"? Do you have your own water fountains?

3. There HAVE been attrocities commited agains homosexuals. I don't remember names or dates, but the fellow in Texas that was dragged behind a pickup and killed certainly ranks as a hideous attrocity. But is it really as widespread as the lynching and killing of blacks was? Does the government look the other way when it happens as it sometimes did with black lynchings?

All this is to say that while there are a few benefits denied to homosexuals (such as marriage), there is no way you will convince me that your plight equals that of the African-American plight of the last couple of centuries.

Emproph says: "To clarify that we are "ALL" sinners, with reference to a specific sin, is to clarify only the distinction you perceive between your sin and that of others. Which fervently nullifies your proposition that homosexuality is somehow equal to your own sinfulness. And thus, you – as OPPOSED to homosexuals – are in a position to claim that all sin is equal. LIAR."

I honestly don't follow your logic on this one, but I think I understand what you are saying. Here is how I view sin. ONE sin, ANY sin, no matter how "small" or how "large" (by some people's standards) is enough to seperate us for eternity from God. The theft of one paperclip from work is still a theft and seperates us from God as much as killing a man. Only by the grace of God and the gift of His son are we able to bridge that gap - and that grace is sufficient for both the paperclip thief and the murderer. In a different sense, there must be worldly recompense dealt out at appropriate levels based on the effect a sin has against fellow men. That necesitates, by a worldly government, a heirchy of grievences. All sins are NOT equal in the site of man.

Now, if stating that I think the Bible calls something sinful somehow means I think THAT sin is worse than mine, then none of can really win, can we? You would say that my bigotry is sinful, correct? Does that suddenly mean that you think my bigotry is worse than any other sin? Hardly.


I don't know, Emproph, how you logic leads you to say I am lying to you. Maybe I just did not understand something you said in your post. A lie necessitates that here is intent to decieve. I may be wrong, but I would ask that you lable me as "misguided" rather than a "liar."


Emproph posted: Quote:
6. No one at Covenant is putting fear in the students minds that SF members will be "hiding in their showers" etc.etc. That is purely ludicrous.

EMPROPH: I wouldn't say "purely ludicrous."

Quote:
Voyles said that a main concern is that the Equality Riders could put students in “compromising positions,” by misconstruing pictures on Facebook or simple gestures, like a hug.

First I have no idea what "Facebook" is. But that does not matter.
Second, take the quote you pulled in the context of the paragraph above it: "Recently Voyles attended a conference in Dallas with other Christian schools to discuss the Equality Ride. Experienced schools said that Soul Force had been disappointed in the previous year’s media attention and could take greater measures on this year’s tour." His comments were saying that basically Covenant needs to assume and plan as if SF will be less "peaceful" or more "controversial" than they have been on past visits to other colleges. He is trying to say that the college just needs to be very wary of a group that invites themselves to visit private organizations who disagree with them, and that they want media attention, and that they have not gotten it in the past, and that they POSSIBLY might try to be more controversial on this visit than they have been on others. There is still no mention in your quote of SF members hiding in showere stalls to waylay helpless Covenant students - which is the "ludicrous" implication I was defending against. That vision does, however, raise some really comical pictures in my mind (comical on both sides of the issue).

Anyway, for the sake of dialog, I have tried to answer some of your questions. Even if you don't agree, does anything I posted above help clarify what worldview I come from? I have no idea who said it, but "Reconcilliation starts with Understanding" is a quote I heard somewhere or another.

Now, will someone PLEASE tell me how to do the cool little gray box quotes?

[keltic63]

Here is the answer:

The Bible has 3 types of law, two of which were overridden by Christ:

1. Ceremonial Law - written specifically for the Jews predating Christ and governing exactly HOW they were to worship God. It dealt with things that were "clean" and "unclean." One example is Passover. They were to slaughter an unblemished lamb that would act as the recipient for the guilt of the sins of the family. From a NT perspective, this was pointing to the final sacrifice of the Pure Lamb of God, Christ. So the OT Jews were not saved by the animal itself, but rather by their faith in a symbol of something to come. This Ceremonial law was abolished or made irrelevant once Christ was sacrificed for us. He came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." In other words, modern Christians no longer have to follow the OT ceremonies to worship God.

2. Moral Law - Basically, the "moral intent" of both the OT and the NT. The ten commandments, the 'golden rule,' etc. This law still applies, and is consistant between the testaments. Adultery is bad in both. So is lying, stealing, dishonoring our parents, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. This was NOT abolished by Christ.

3. Judicial Law - The Judicial Law was basically the governmental regulations given by God for the Nation of Israel. It was how they were to react to every situation. This is where the whole stoning of adulterers thing comes in. Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow. This is why his reaction to the whore who was to be stoned was to say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."



Could you tell us which scriptures inform us as to how we decide which laws are Ceremonial, Moral, or Judicial?

[u-dog]

Michael,

Here is a little tutorial that Daniel prepared for Antonyh:

May I please help you out with the quote function? It took me a little while to figure it out myself. When you are able to do this, your reader is going to have a much easier time understanding you and will not confuse your words with those of others. Less confusion means better dialogue.

All you need to do is make sure you have the following before the text you want to quote:

[quote]

Now. Say you want to quote me. Then it would look like this:

[quote=Daniel]

Notice the equal sign plus my name.

The text you quote is then followed by:

[/quote

Note the slash! It's the important part. Please also notice that I have LEFT OUT the bracket " ] " after the word quote itself which MUST be included for the quote function to work. Why? If I had included it here it would initiate the quote function itself and look like this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel

Notice the equal sign plus my name.

The text you are quoted is then followed by:




I hope I haven't confused you here.

As always, the devil is in the details.

[Daniel]

All this is to say that while there are a few benefits denied to homosexuals (such as marriage), there is no way you will convince me that your plight equals that of the African-American plight of the last couple of centuries.


I beg to differ. Those 'few' rights which- because you are straight (yes?) and may take them for granted- are not few in number.

Marriage alone gives couples over 1400 privileges and rights. And in a majority of states, it is still Ok to fire someone and deny them housing for no other reason than that they gay. The list goes on and on.

Your use of the word 'few' only reveals how ignorant you are with regard to the concerns of those you address, and how lacking you are in compassion for those, who for no fault of their own, suffer from that ignorance.

[jmkeuning]

Here's how to do the quote thingy:

When you reply, paste what you want in the grey box thingy in your post. Then select that text that you want in the grey box thingy and then hit the "Wrap tags around the selected text" button.

http://www.bunchafreaks.com/images/blog/SF_Forum_QuoteThingy.JPG

So:

http://www.bunchafreaks.com/images/blog/SF_Forum_ThisIsAQuote.JPG

Becomes:

[QUOTE]This is a quote:


Alternatively, there is a Quote button in the bottom right of the posts. you can hit this and it will grab the entirety of the post and put it in a quote with a reference to the poster and link to the post you are quoting.

[u-dog]

Keltic, Would you mind moving your last post (#38) to another thread? How about to "the bible, tradition, and interpretation"? I really would like to hear Michaels answer to your question. I have never understood that whole argument but I think it will derail this particular thread (which already is dealing with too many issues.

Would that work for you Michael?

Dave

(Oh boy! Andy is going to be so excited! He loves this kind of stuff):lol:

[jmkeuning]

I'm a straight, married, grad of Covenant College.

I agree with Daniel. Marriage is on the list of rights denied homosexuals (along with that comes denial of partner health benefits, lack of intestate succession, etc.).

Daniel's comment about denying housing and jobs to homosexuals is of course real. The problem is, I believe you will find that many people do not believe that housing and jobs are civil rights (they're not, actually). Of course, this then has to be taken further, and you have to believe that people to do not have the civil right to be free from discrimination based on sexual identity/gender preference.

I do not agree with these many people. I think that homosexuality should be added to the list of protected groups, along with sex, religion, age, race, etc.

Perhaps this sort of policy discussion is the type of thing that could have been , but now will not be, discussed at Covenant.

Believe me, we talked about this stuff when I was a student. The prevailing thought was that it's A-OK to keep the gays as far away as possible.

--

Also, guaranteed - as soon as this discussion starts, the retort is, "Well, who else are we going to allow on campus? Pedophiles? People who endorse beasiality? Then what, we have to rent to and give jobs to these people?" I know you've already heard that 100 times.

[kara speltz]

I beg to differ. Those 'few' rights which- because you are straight (yes?) and may take them for granted- are not few in number.

Marriage alone gives couples over 1400 privileges and rights. And in a majority of states, it is still Ok to fire someone and deny them housing for no other reason than that they gay. The list goes on and on.

Your use of the word 'few' only reveals how ignorant you are with regard to the concerns of those you address, and how lacking you are in compassion for those, who for no fault of their own, suffer from that ignorance.

Ah yes, Daniel, the plight of heterosexual privelege is that for 99.9% of straight people (even our allies:mad: ) they haven't a clue.

I have been having some interesting discussions with folks at my church about that very subject. People who have been supportive of gays, for years and years and years, but when you raise the subject of heterosexual privelege, they look at you blankly and ask what that means.

And yet I recall my same response when my black friends would challenge me on white-skin privelege, so I'm not deriding anyone. You have to know it exists before you can begin to change your awareness about it.

I know I've told this story before on this forum, but one of the reasons Jimmy Creech is such a hero to me, has to do with an incident at the Methodist conference back in 2000. We were taking demands to some of the bishops and on the list of demands was the reinstatement of Jimmy Creech (who had been defrocked the year before). Jimmy told the group we had to take that off the list, because he wasn't going to stand on his heterosexual privelege - he would not be reinstated, til every LGBT minister was reinstated or ordained if they had been denied ordination due to their sexual orientation. We stood in awe. He recognized his privelege while we had not.

kara

[Zerbie]

t Now, this one will be a little more touchy. Various posters are correct in thinking that in general, PCA'rs don't agree with equating the homosexual rights movement with the racial movement of a few decades ago.

1. Blacks were brought against their will to America and were bought, sold, traded as animals. While homosexuals WERE kept "in the closet" and WERE "hated" by some, I don't think it is fair to compare the two.

"Comparing" prejudices and atrocities is a mixed-bag. There are parallels, and there are also places where those parallels break down. It's not a pure 100% comparison, rather one with *some* similarities.


2. Then blacks went through segregation: They had no voting rights. They had separate water fountains. Schools, buses, restaurants, even some churches had "white only" sections and "negro" sections. While somewhere, sometime, I am sure homosexuals have been removed from restaurants or a church, is it really fair to compare what discrimination there has been against homosexuals to the heavily institutionalized (even governmentally standardized) repression of blacks? Have you ever been kept from voting? Have you seen a sign in a window of a restaurant saying, "no gays!"? Do you have your own water fountains?

Again, "pure" comparison is a touchy issue. No, gays have not experienced the same exact manifestation of prejudice and discrimination as African Americans. Indeed, [B]no two marginalized groups have the *exact same* experience. They are comparable in the fact that they are both incidents of horrendous institionalized and widespread cultural prejudice.

However, what's immediately apparent Michael, is that you are unaware of the depth and breadth of institutionalized prejudice and discrimination that homosexuals have faced for generations, much of which is STILL at issue today. I won't blame you for not knowing. I grew up practically surrounded by gay men and boys (teachers, peers, and very close friends) and I did NOT KNOW that they were DENIED equal protection under the law for being gay until I got curious enough about why so many of my acquaintances were fear-ridden, to pick up a book on the subject (when in my early 20s). I was HORRIFIED by what I learned. I request that you stop by your nearest Barnes & Noble, browse over to the gay/lesbian section, and pick up a sampling of different books that deal with the history of gay persons in America in the past 100 or so years. You will be astonished.

Homosexual persons, and heterosexual persons wrongly believed to be homosexual, have been removed from jobs, passed over from promotions and honors, denied church memberships. Harassed, beaten. Thrown out of homes by landlords, and even parents (still happening, 1500 homeless gay teens on the streets in my area thrown out by parents who won't have "a homosexual" in their house.) Baited and persecuted by police. incarcerated for dancing together. Incarcerated for making love in their own bedrooms (don't believe me? Google "Bowers versus Hardwick" and "Lawrence versus Texas.")

You asked about separate water fountains - how old are you? I'm just over 30 and I remember 25 years ago when AIDS panic hit the scene - there was total panic about everything from water fountains to restaurant utensils, and plenty of outcry and talk of denying homosexuals service in restaurants to the use of public toilets, to talk of quarantining all gay men in special camps - all this because it was assumed that gay = has AIDS (to say nothing of the paranoia about spreading it, despite finding that it is transmitted only in particular ways.) Instead of rushing to help the afflicted and the dying, instead of providing research into treatment, cure, and vaccine, tens of thousands were left to die abandoned while the world said "good riddance." Did you not notice?


You mentioned hate crimes. Yes, those continue. Reported anti-gay hate violence numbers something over 1000 incidents a year. That's over 3 a day. And that only counts those incidents where the victim told the police s/he was targeted for being gay. We suspect there are victims who are afraid to tell police they are gay - and that doesn't account for victims who are too afraid to call the police at all. I once witnessed a few men assaulted with broken glass bottles by a gang of rowdy teenagers, and those men never reported the incident to the police. They restrained me from making a call, in fact.

More on hate violence. In years past, anti-gay violence was met institutionally with a mere slap on the wrist. Light sentences. Probation. In 1992, a murderer was brought before a judge for killing a gay man in a hate crime. The judge is reported to have said, "What? It's a crime to kill a fag now?"




3
All this is to say that while there are a few benefits denied to homosexuals (such as marriage), there is no way you will convince me that your plight equals that of the African-American plight of the last couple of centuries.

ts?

Do you still feel there is "no way" we will convince you that the plight of gay people in America matters as much as that of blacks? That perhaps in some ways it DOES equate? (Of course, recognizing that the details are different, the costs to lives, livelihoods, physical health, and emotions are indeed enormous, and the institutional apathy is culpable in BOTH racism AND homophobia.)

If not, I, and the other members I'm sure, could go on and on citing further examples. I haven't even gotten to housing, employment, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, or inheritance, yet. And the fact that all these factors affect not ONLY the gay person(s) involved, but their parents, children, siblings, spouse/partners, professional colleagues, and friends. I'm going to stop typing so I can go make some dinner. I'm ravenous!!

Folks, I think we would do well to suggest a reading list to Michael where he could learn about the vast institutional discrimination that is in fact at stake here, and just how horrific it has been in recent decades. Any recommendations?

[u-dog]

And do you know the derivation of the word "faggot" Michael? Its "faggot" as in a bundle of sticks or branches... as in firewood... as in burning at the stake. Think about it.

I didn't start to REALLY get angry at your remarks (mostly because I have lived all my life in the closet pretending - even to myself - that I am a straight person) until i read Zerbie's list and was reminded of the crap that Gay people suffer every day at the hands of Covenant College Alums (among many others obviously).

It really doesn't matter whether Black people have suffered more than Gay people or vice a versa. What is important is that oppressed minorities suffer at the hands of oppresive majorities because Christian members of the majority population don't in fact "love us" enough to find out the truth much less to fight for justice. And just for the record I include myself in that indictment since even though I never engaged in homophobia from my deep dark closet I never demonstrated at the statehouse for gay equality either.

Dave

[Daniel]

Folks, I think we would do well to suggest a reading list to Michael where he could learn about the vast institutional discrimination that is in fact at stake here, and just how horrific it has been in recent decades. Any recommendations?

Happy to oblige. Here's a start.

1) Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry by Evan Wolfson

2) Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights by Eric Marcus

3) Departing from Deviance: A History of Homosexual Rights and Emancipatory Science in America by Henry L. Minton, Minton

4) Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History
by Walter L. Williams (Editor), Yolanda Retter (Editor), Yolanda Retter
(Editor)

5) Before Stonewall by Vern L. Bullough, C. Todd White, Judith M. Saunders (Editor), Sharon Valente (Editor)

6) How to Make the World a Better Place for Gays and Lesbians
by Una W. Fah

7) Gay Life and Culture: A World History by Robert Aldrich (Editor)

8) Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 by George Chauncey

9) Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the 14th Century by John Eastburn Boswell

10) Homosexuality & Civilization by Louis Crompton

11) Familiar Faces, Hidden Lives: The Story of Homosexual Men in America Today
by Howard Brown, Randy Shilts (Introduction)

12) Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century by Graham Rob

13) Homosexuals in History: A Study of Ambivalence in Society, Literature and the Arts by A. L. Rowse

[Zerbie]

And do you know the derivation of the word "faggot" Michael? Its "faggot" as in a bundle of sticks or branches... as in firewood... as in burning at the stake. Think about it.

I didn't start to REALLY get angry at your remarks (mostly because I have lived all my life in the closet pretending - even to myself - that I am a straight person) until i read Zerbie's list and was reminded of the crap that Gay people suffer every day at the hands of Covenant College Alums (among many others obviously).

It really doesn't matter whether Black people have suffered more than Gay people or vice a versa. What is important is that oppressed minorities suffer at the hands of oppresive majorities because Christian members of the majority population don't in fact "love us" enough to find out the truth much less to fight for justice. And just for the record I include myself in that indictment since even though I never engaged in homophobia from my deep dark closet I never demonstrated at the statehouse for gay equality either.

Dave

Dave,
:love:

I didn't write that to make anyone angry at Michael. It's clear he didn't know about the vast institutionalized prejudice that has victimized gay folk for generations. I've finally come to the understanding that, amazing though this is to me, most straight people are completely unaware of it. Illustration: 2 weeks ago out shopping with some girl friends. The one most openly caring of LGBT persons (asked me to see Transamerica with her last year, says her heart breaks when people say cruel things about gay folk,) was chatting with me when I mentioned that Arizona lacks employment protections for gay persons. She was astonished to learn that it's legal for an employer to fire someone just for being gay. Astonished. And I had assumed all along that she knew.

We really DO have to tell people what's up. Because 99% of people DO NOT KNOW. Why would they? Who has told them?

Love to you Dave. :love:

[kara speltz]

Do you still feel there is "no way" we will convince you that the plight of gay people in America matters as much as that of blacks? That perhaps in some ways it DOES equate? (Of course, recognizing that the details are different, the costs to lives, livelihoods, physical health, and emotions are indeed enormous, and the institutional apathy is culpable in BOTH racism AND homophobia.)

If not, I, and the other members I'm sure, could go on and on citing further examples. I haven't even gotten to housing, employment, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, or inheritance, yet. And the fact that all these factors affect not ONLY the gay person(s) involved, but their parents, children, siblings, spouse/partners, professional colleagues, and friends. I'm going to stop typing so I can go make some dinner. I'm ravenous!!

Folks, I think we would do well to suggest a reading list to Michael where he could learn about the vast institutional discrimination that is in fact at stake here, and just how horrific it has been in recent decades. Any recommendations?

Excellent post Zerbie. I'll copy below the list we sent Abilene, but I don't think anything will convince this poster. His mind is made up and he doesn't want facts to confuse him.

But let me take one final stab. James Lawson, the person who taught the Nashville Lunch Counter sit in people has said about the gay civil rights movement, "for gays and lesbians, your struggle was harder, because we had our families and our churches to support us." Now I personally don't agree that our struggle is harder, and as several have pointed out I actually think comparing struggles doesn't do much good, but to hear my civil rights hero say that, brought tears to my eyes.

Now, for the books we recommended to ACU:

1) "Stranger at the Gate - to be Gay and Christian in America," by Rev. Mel White

2) "Jesus, the Bible, And Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church" by Jack Rogers

3) "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," by Daniel Helminiak

4) "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus Borg; published by Harper Collins

5) "Gay Marriage" by Jonathan Rauch; published by Times Books New York

6) "Trans-Gendered: Theology, Ministry & Communities of Faith" by Justin Tanis

7) "Our Tribe" by Rev. Nancy Wilson

8) "The Lord is my Shephard & He Knows I'm Gay, The autobiography of Troy Perry"

9) "What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality," (you can download this from our resource list)
Kara

[Zerbie]

Great book lists, Daniel and Kara!!!

Thanks! :D Some of those titles I need to look at myself. (Ooh can't wait til summer)

Kara, I'm keeping all conclusions open about Michael. Since his post illustrated he didn't know how pervasive institutional discrimination has been and still is, perhaps he will see differently once he discovers what's at stake.

[tdogg]

Excellent reading references Daniel and Kara. I'm reading Making Gay History right now. I've ready many of those on the lists and highly recommend anyone interested in learning more about GLBT history and culture, and Biblical interpretation issues to get into these books. Hopefully, Michael, you are planning or already have gone to a Barnes and Noble to pick up some reading. Knowing where WE are 'coming from' will certainly go a long way towards real and genuine dialogue here. I don't say this to exclude anyone not gay or lesbian, just anyone who converses here that sees that equality and civil rights are lacking for GLBT people.

The problem with discussing the "hate the sin love the sinner" aspect is that we do not believe being homosexual is a sin or acting on our desires is sinful. I am no less a child of God, or a Christian (if by that it means a believer in Christ's teachings and laws of love), than any one else, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or even you Michael (not to lump you in the same category, I don't really know you). The point is, anyone can say what they want about me and my faith, but it doesn't remove the fact that I have my faith, it's between me and my God and no other human, so I'm pretty darn comfortable with my beliefs no matter what others opine. That's a fairly common thought here on the boards.

For those who believe in God - God created an amazing, diversified world - with the help of natural selection and evolution. Why would anyone not open their eyes enough to see that homosexuality is just another one of God's diverse creations. The myths are just that - we are not trying to overtake the world (although I have my own opinions on how much better that might be ;) ), we are not 'recruiters' (but we are supporters, encouragers and counselors), we are not trying to cease the human race by stopping procreation, we are not sexually addicted savages bent on getting sex whenever, wherever or with whoever, we are not sick or sinful.

We are just another of God's creations, living our lives the best we can, trying to love others as we've been instructed even when we don't agree with them or they are oppressing us. We have jobs, pets, children, money issues, parents to care for. We dress in a variety of ways, have personal and individual traits and characteristics just like any other person on earth, we cry, we laugh, we listen to music (some more talented actually make music), we watch TV (again, some get to act) - wow, our lives are NO different than any others. Except, I feel a lot more acceptance, love, understanding and compassion with my GLBT friends here than I do with a lot of hetero friends out in the world. It's amazing how judgmental people can be when they fail to look into the mirrow and try to see how they can improve. (Andy, LOVE your quote!).

Anyway, just starting to ramble, and supposed to be getting my tax documents in order, so better stop now. Just a plea Michael, please do some reading and research. Not asking you to change your mind, just to see things a bit through our eyes. Not too much to ask. :love:

[u-dog]

Don't worry Z, I take full responsibility for my own emotional responses. Nobody can "make me mad" especially not you! I chose to embrace my righteous anger in response to the list of indignities that you shared. I'm over it now Michael! its safe to come out! ;) (I mean from under cover! not from the closet:eek: )

[ml1]

Here's how to do the quote thingy:

When you reply, paste what you want in the grey box thingy in your post. Then select that text that you want in the grey box thingy and then hit the "Wrap [Quote] tags around the selected text" button.

http://www.bunchafreaks.com/images/blog/SF_Forum_QuoteThingy.JPG

So:

http://www.bunchafreaks.com/images/blog/SF_Forum_ThisIsAQuote.JPG

Becomes:




Alternatively, there is a Quote button in the bottom right of the posts. you can hit this and it will grab the entirety of the post and put it in a quote with a reference to the poster and link to the post you are quoting.
Thanks for the help. I have to say, the posting options on this site are much nicer than we have on the Covenant site.

[ml1]

I fail to see how dialogue is going to occur if the only option you offer gay Christians is repentance and celibacy

That is pretty much my point - most of the Covenant Alumni (not all) would say that really is the only option. I know you don't care for that, but not liking it won't change it. Where you should focus if you want to attack that worldview is on convincing them (us) that our interpretation of the Bible is wrong. That the numerous references in the Bible really WERE only intended for that culture. That the term "natural" (exchanged the unnatural for the natural) really meant "natural for each individual on their terms", and not "natural as conservatives think God planned it."

One of the sins of my past and a huge temptation for me now is heterosexual adultery. I would love to have some sex, honestly. But as I am not married, I can not do so and follow God's commandments. It has been 7 years now since I even had a good kiss. Celibacy IS doable. I could try to justify it by just playing around a little. Or I could say that because I have access to condoms and therefore have eliminated the consequences of the sin, that God would not mind so much. I could even try to say it is not adultery as long as the woman is not married (not another man's wife). I have actually heard that one used!

So, since homosexuals don't have the option I have of being married (well, the theoretical option, anyway), it would seem unfair to say "just stay celibate your entire life." I can not deny that point. But somehow that has to be reconciled to how the Bible describes both marriage AND homosexuality.

[u-dog]

One of the sins of my past and a huge temptation for me now is heterosexual adultery. I would love to have some sex, honestly. But as I am not married, I can not do so and follow God's commandments. It has been 7 years now since I even had a good kiss. Celibacy IS doable.

Michael -- In one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians he says that he would prefer it if everyone could remain celibate so they could stay more focused on the Gospel (as he has done) but concedes that it is better to marry than to burn (most scholars think he means "than to burn with passion" rather than "to burn in hell") Calvin interprets this to mean that celibacy is NOT a choice (not "doable") but rather a charism or a gift of the spirit. In his writings about the celibate Roman Catholic Priesthood he is scornful of the notion that celibacy is a choice that anyone can make. He says that celibacy is like fasting. it should be engaged in for a season as a spiritual discipline. He argues that Celibacy is a temporary gift not given to everyone and that it is given to no one for a lifetime. what do you think about that.



I could try to justify it by just playing around a little. Or I could say that because I have access to condoms and therefore have eliminated the consequences of the sin, that God would not mind so much. I could even try to say it is not adultery as long as the woman is not married (not another man's wife). I have actually heard that one used!

Technically, Michael, it is NOT ADULTERY, unless covenantal vows are being violated by someone. If you are married and having sex with someone other than your spouse... thats adultery. if you are having sex with someone else's spouse.. THAT is adultery. Two unmarried people cannot commit adultery. Sex outside of marriage is technically fornication... which, of course, is ALSO a sin. So why aren't you dating? Thats the usual first step toward marriage which is the best opportunity you seem to have for guilt free sex ... not to mention long walks on the beach and eating popcorn while watching Casablanca on the late show.


So, since homosexuals don't have the option I have of being married (well, the theoretical option, anyway), it would seem unfair to say "just stay celibate your entire life." I can not deny that point. But somehow that has to be reconciled to how the Bible describes both marriage AND homosexuality.

Of course, much has been written here and elsewhere about reconciling homosexuality to scripture but there is not much point in starting that argument until we sort out this whole "inerrancy" business. Have you had any thoughts in answer to Keltics questions (not to mention mine) over on the other thread?

Dave

[JacoBison]

Good thread. Glad to see other Christian College Alumni posting here.

One note about the OT, NT and Adultery: In OT time and Hebrew culture, a man purchased his wife from her father. Women were property bought to bear children which were then used for farmers and soldiers. So if another man has sex with your wife and she becomes pregnant, who do the children belong to? Technically they belong to her husband because he owns her and her children.

Jesus created a new paradigm when he stated that looking at another man's wife with lust is committing adultery in your heart. Suddenly the ethical code was about fidelity and loyalty TOWARD her rather than stealing property from another man. You might even say Jesus was the first feminist. :)

[NathanATX]

Freshman Philip Cordington blogs on the Equality Ride.

Post a comment!
Nate

http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/

[antonyh]

One of the sins of my past and a huge temptation for me now is heterosexual adultery. I would love to have some sex, honestly. But as I am not married, I can not do so and follow God's commandments. It has been 7 years now since I even had a good kiss.

First let me say that you're long overdue for a good kiss. I hope God sends the right girl along soon. Unfortunately, you probably won't find a date on this forum :)

My only comment here is that you're reducing everything to sex. I came out because I wanted to find love, to find someone to make a life with, to find committed companionship. Yes, sex is part of that, but not the whole thing. I have a partner and we live together in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship. We are very happy together. The only rub is that we can't seem to find anyone to marry us.


Celibacy IS doable...So, since homosexuals don't have the option I have of being married (well, the theoretical option, anyway), it would seem unfair to say "just stay celibate your entire life." I can not deny that point.


You're saying celibacy is doable, but you're saying not over a whole lifetime. In otherwords, you feel the pain.

Dude, I'm glad you're here! Keep posting :)

[Daniel]

Freshman Philip Cordington blogs on the Equality Ride.

Post a comment!
Nate

http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/

Thanks Nate. I did.

[Emproph]

I'm sorry for the delay, and I appreciate your prompt response. I had this whole thing done the other night but then was too tired to post it. That would have required another couple hourse in edits. I'm a perfectionist. :o

EMPROPH ASKED: "I am not a Christian? You consider yourself to be in a position to determine for Jesus/God, my relationship with Jesus/God? You – and those on the Covenant forum – speak for Jesus'/God's relationship with me? You speak for Jesus/God?"

My quote "...homosexuals CAN be Christians,"

can apparently have different interpretations than what I meant it as, and has caused you some offense. I apologize for the offense. First, keep in mind that I was defending against the stereotype that 100% of conservatives think homosexuality and Christianity are 100% incompatible.Thank you for giving me permission to be saved.
Keep in mind that PCA doctrine says that once someone has truly accepted Christ into their lives, they can not lose their salvation.
I only wish I could thank PCA myself for their gracious doctrine dictating my eternal fate.
SO ... my point actually agrees with yours. We at Covenant should NOT across the board say that SF members are not Christians.
I appreciate your clarification. I had second thoughts afterwords about what you'd meant. And I was half teasing with the responses above, but point be made. BTW, what does PCA stand for?
~~
First, the number of posts I have MADE is irrelevant. The number of posts I have READ is relevant to what I think SF members (in general) believe. But that aside...^Agreed.^
While I certainly can not speak for EVERYONE on this site, based on TJ's better dialogue on the Covenant site and what I have read in the other forums here, I can say the following things are "disagreements" between the Covenant folks (in general) and SF'rs (in general):
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, I see Soulforce as an interfaith movement not a denomination of any specific Christian belief structure.
1. SF members generally do not believe the Bible to be written by God through his instruments of Man. They believe godly men wrote it. There IS a difference.

You’d have to make that assessment on an individual basis. You’re a member now, do a poll. But still you can’t say that “Soulforce members” are comprised of a percentage of whatever criteria.

To use your words, the number of posts that have been made is irrelevant. The number of posts that have been read is relevant. Forum members may or may not be representative of all Soulforce members, which begs the question, what is your definition of “member?”
~~
3. SF members ...the Bible...should be interpreted in light of current societal norms and culture.
As compared with:
If [B]the Bible is WRITTEN by God, has been PRESERVED by God (as he promised in the Bible to do), and is 100% applicable to moderne society, then one of the results is that everything in the Bible that is called "sin" must therefore be "sin." Does that logic make sense? Any disagreement with those 3 points gets in the way of ever coming to a consensus.
SO ... no, conservatives DON'T have to stone adulterers to be consistant with calling adultery sinful. Does that satisfactorily answer your question? I know you may not agree with it, but that is where I am coming from.
In #2 above I mentioned that SF'rs do not have a good grasp of part of the PCA's doctrine. Emproph states over a couple of paragraphs that for PCA'rs to be consistant, they would have to stone adulterers, etc. I have seen that argument many times.
I've also heard your justification below many times. First of all, the example I gave was that homosexuals must be put to death. Not adulterers and not necessarily stoned. According to the Bible, all you are obliged to do "in modern society" would be to pass a constitutional amendment making my execution legal. That would be more Biblically consistent.

2. Moral Law - Basically, the "moral intent" of both the OT and the NT. The ten commandments, the 'golden rule,' etc. This law still applies, and is consistant between the testaments. Adultery is bad in both. So is lying, stealing, dishonoring our parents, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. This was NOT abolished by Christ.
Homosexuality is "bad in both" is the argument at hand. So what is the "moral intent" of same-sex attraction?

3. Judicial Law - The Judicial Law was basically the governmental regulations given by God for the Nation of Israel. It was how they were to react to every situation. This is where the whole stoning of adulterers thing comes in. Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow. This is why his reaction to the whore who was to be stoned was to say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
~~
Let's review:


Truth requires logic
The truth of logic requires consistency
Consistency is the most important aspect in the determination of truth.
the Bible...is 100% applicable to moderne society
everything in the Bible that is called "sin" must therefore be "sin."
VS:
Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow.
SO ... no, conservatives DON'T have to stone adulterers to be consistant with calling adultery sinful.
That's the epitome of inconsistency. It doesn't matter why certian things are no longer "applicable to modern society," the very fact that they are no longer applicable makes the Bible less than "100% applicable."

You commit logicide. If God is truth, then by commiting logicide you commit deicide. Thus by desparaging the simple logic of truth you desparage God – logically speaking.

If simple logic is not a concern of yours then truth of any-kind regarding any-thing is not a concern of yours.
~~
A few specifics regarding "100% applicable to moderne society"
the Bible...is 100% applicable to moderne society
Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow. So God as Jesus changed unchanging God's mind about things?
everything in the Bible that is called "sin" must therefore be "sin."Eating shrimp and pork, wearing mixed fabrics? You clarified yourself that these are no longer applicable sins.
SO ... no, conservatives DON'T have to [have homosexuals executed] to be consistant with calling [homosexuality] sinful.
If you're using the fundamental inconsistencies of the Bible as the basis for your logic, and thus your truth, then we have NOTHING left to discuss. As I said:
For the record, I'm not judging you, I'm judging your unwillingness to tell the truth about you.
All you've done so far is claim that the Bible is 100% true and then used wordplay to justify how it's not 100% true, yet is still 100% true.

That being the case, it's not "sin" we disagree on, it's the nature of truth itself, and more specifically your ability to admit to the real definition of your logic, and thus your truth – as evidenced by this as well:
If the Bible is WRITTEN by God, has been PRESERVED by God (as he promised in the Bible to do)
Circular logic:
Joe is not a liar. How do I know Joe is not a liar? Joe told me that he's not a liar.
You can believe anything illogical or inconsistent that you like, but if you want to play with me then you need to make sense. Sense to me means universal logic – consistency.

I understand that some of your Biblical interpretations/understandings have an acceptable logic that I may not understand yet, but circular "logic" is illogical. And "100% applicable" coupled with the explanation of not entirely 100% applicable, is inconsistent, illogical, and therefore untruthful.

This needs to be answered: Do you accept the importance of consistency in regard to what is required for something to be true?
~~
And for the record, when I speak of adultery, I'm including Jesus' definition of it as remarriage. Do you consider remarriage (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1958), minus the explicit Biblical exceptions, to be adultery? If not, why not.
~~
All this is to say that while there are a few benefits denied to homosexuals (such as marriage), there is no way you will convince me that your plight equals that of the African-American plight of the last couple of centuries.Of course it’s not equal, you can SEE their plight because you can see their skin color. I think Zerbie put it well, there are similarities but the principle is the same. We can argue over the extent of those similarities, but it's not the point, the principle is.

Unless you think that being able to "see" someone's traits/minority status is what you consider to be the principle?
~~
Emproph says: "To clarify that we are "ALL" sinners, with reference to a specific sin, is to clarify only the distinction you perceive between your sin and that of others. Which fervently nullifies your proposition that homosexuality is somehow equal to your own sinfulness. And thus, you – as OPPOSED to homosexuals – are in a position to claim that all sin is equal. LIAR."I honestly don't follow your logic on this one, but I think I understand what you are saying...ONE sin, ANY sin, no matter how "small" or how "large" (by some people's standards) is enough to seperate us for eternity from God.That's perfectly loverly in principle but we're not arguing principle here, we're arguing practical, as in the "practice" of that principle. So it's a moot point and I find it disingenuous of you to even bring it up.The theft of one paperclip from work is still a theft and seperates us from God as much as killing a man. Only by the grace of God and the gift of His son are we able to bridge that gap - and that grace is sufficient for both the paperclip thief and the murderer.My point is that the only reason the principle of the "equality" of sin itself is brought up, is to obfuscate the unequal (and thus unethical and sinful) practice of the belief in its equality. It's bullshit and it's a lie. Clearly you do not think that my sin is equal to your sin or you would not be making the attempt to portray them as equal. You portray your sin as equal to mine in order to obfusacate the intentional isolation of my particular sin from your own.

I don't consider this misguided, I consider it deceptive. We're either equal in sin or we're not. You've put yourself in an unequal position to claim that I am sinful in a way that you are not, yet claim sinful equality in the attempt to obscure the position you've taken. All I ask is that you be honest about this.
~~
In a different sense, there must be worldly recompense dealt out at appropriate levels based on the effect a sin has against fellow men.
What is the effect of my “sinful” attraction/relationship “against” my fellow man and what would you have the “worldly recompense” dealt me be for my "sinful" same-gender attraction/relationship?

"Against my fellow man" being the mitigating operator. Beyond that, as far as I can see, you're attempting to speak for God.
~~
Now, if stating that I think the Bible calls something sinful somehow means I think THAT sin is worse than mine, then none of can really win, can we?

I’ve made it clear that I’ll take honesty any day over deception. So if that’s your position then we’ve already lost. Speak for yourself.

You would say that my bigotry is sinful, correct? Does that suddenly mean that you think my bigotry is worse than any other sin? Hardly.

To the extent that the effect of your bigotry is worse than the effect of other sins, then the sin of your bigotry is worse than other sins.

That is consistent, therefore it is logical, therefore I consider it to be the truth (of sin).

I don't know, Emproph, how you logic leads you to say I am lying to you. Maybe I just did not understand something you said in your post. A lie necessitates that here is intent to decieve. I may be wrong, but I would ask that you lable me as "misguided" rather than a "liar."
Fair enough, I’m sorry. I can appreciate that and will make more of an effort to clarify my perceptions in that regard.

I also want to thank you for you patience and tolerance of me in regard to my own judgementalism. Despite the magnitude of our (continued) disagreements and misperceptions, I know you could have been much more defensive and condemnatory in your response. :tup:
~~
There is still no mention in your quote of SF members hiding in showere stalls to waylay helpless Covenant students - which is the "ludicrous" implication I was defending against. That vision does, however, raise some really comical pictures in my mind (comical on both sides of the issue).
Ok, well at least we can agree on that last part. Considering the depiction of Soulforce in the article, that’s why revtj’s shower reference didn’t seem like that big of an extrapolation to me. Heck, if a simple “hug” is going send the ER riders into a sexual frenzy, that WOULD be a concern. It was a ludicrous example of concern. In addition, he gave the link to the article so that anyone so inclined could match his words with what was said, which I did.

I would have extrapolated even further:
Good Lord, according to the "hug" analogy, the fact that you responded to me without claiming to hate me must me that you love me and want to marry me. Your words to me are therefore a marriage proposal. :lol: So I agree, LUDICROUS.
Even if you don't agree, does anything I posted above help clarify what worldview I come from?
Yes, very much so. In fact I think we’ve accomplished a lot, I feel that it was quite productive, despite the fact that there are even more questions to be answered, I appreciate the earnestness of your thoroughness of clarification.

Happy Trails, :cowboy:

Until we disagree again.. :shifty:

-Patrick

(half-joking) Oh, and P.S., after what you people did to him, TJ’s off the hook for everything...Covenant College, for shame...

(TJ off-the hooker) :lol:

[revtj]

http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=12241

[NathanATX]

http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/spacer.gif

« Wedding Collage (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/22/wedding-collage/)New Residence Hall (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/29/new-residence-hall/) »
Equality Ride (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/)

For the last several weeks and months, the Equality Riders for the Soulforce Equality Ride (http://www.soulforce.org/equalityride) have been a topic of discussion at Covenant College. The Riders are a group of people who are against discrimination of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender people. Their mission statement as quoted from their website (which can be followed using the link above) is “Freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”

They requested a visit to the Covenant College campus in the beginning of April 2007 (in a mere week). After much debate, discussion, and prayer, President Nielson announced Covenant’s decision today concerning the matter.

“After much prayer, counsel, and consideration of various options, we have decided not to allow the Equality Ride to visit our campus. We plan to tell them courteously that they cannot enter our campus, and have alerted local law enforcement officials just in case the Riders attempt to do so,” stated President Nielson on March 27, 2007.

When I first heard of the Equality Ride and the possibility of their visit to Covenant, it appeared to be an awesome opportunity to share the love of God with them. What better way to reach out to a group of people that does feel oppression and discrimination in this day? I am not condoning it or agreeing with it on any grounds. The Bible is very intentional and clear about God’s grounds for sex and sexual relationships. Anything outside those grounds of marriage is a sin. But I also recognize that homosexuality is a struggle for many people. It is only when we act and engage in those thoughts and lusts of our hearts when we give in to temptation and go against God’s will for our lives that it becomes a sin.

Homosexuality is a sin that many people struggle with. Just like pornography… or alcoholism, or gambling, or eating disorders. They ALL violate what God desires for us. But not one of them is worse in God’s sight. They are ALL sins that God condemns. But temptations with these sins is different. Temptation is so often viewed as wrong. Just like criticism (if you get the chance read my post on “Constructive Criticism”) which can be destructive or constructive, temptation offers the option of doing what is right or doing what is wrong.

My granddad once told me a story of a man that he knew. He passed away a few years ago, but during the last few days of his life he told my granddad that he had been an alcoholic all of his life. “I haven’t touched a drop of alcohol in over 50 years, but I have been an alcoholic all my life.” That man recognized that he had a struggle… and that it was an ongoing, life-long struggle even though he resisted the temptation for over 50 years.
Homosexuality is the same thing. It is a struggle that many people have to deal with - but it isn’t a sin. Only when we act on it (whether in our thoughts or actions or words) does it become a sin.

With this in mind, as a body of Christian believers, we should not be quick to condemn or discriminate against those who struggle with sexual sins (or any sin for that matter) …we should offer the love of God and the truth of the gospel. With this in mind, why not allow the Equality Riders to roam our campus freely? Why not pursue the opportunity to minister and speak with them… and to share God’s truth with them?

The Soulforce Equality Ride requested permission to roam Covenant’s campus freely while having the opportunity to talk with students. “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,” stated President Nielson in his letter to the student body (https://wycliffe.covenant.edu/exchange/pcodington/Inbox/Covenant%20College/Final%20Response%20to%20Equality%20Ride.EML/Equality%20Ride%20Final%20Plan.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/Equality%20Ride%20Final%20Plan.pdf?attach=1). The letter goes on to explain the reasons for Covenant College’s decision to deny the Riders access to our campus. I encourage you to read it in its entirety - and know the full story and the complete reasons for Covenant’s decision.

President Nielson went on by saying, “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… the Ride organizers rejected our offer.”
I encourage you all to go on and read the letter that President Nielson addressed to the student body of Covenant. It speaks with greater clarity and words than I could ever hope to reiterate here.

But I believe Covenant’s decision on this matter has been a wise, prayerful, and biblical decision. My only hope and prayer is that it serves to strengthen the student body of Covenant in the beliefs and teachings of truth found in God’s Word, as well as serves as a reminder that we live in a fallen world that is SO in need of our prayers and our actions as ambassadors of Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 says…
“17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Published on 28 Mar 2007 at 8:42 am (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/). 14 Comments (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/#comments).
Filed under Student Life (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/category/student-life/), Real Life Issues (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/category/real-life-issues/).

And my response:

Philip,
The Equality Ride is about ending spiritual violence.
You may not have experienced the devastating state of “non-existence” that LGBT Christian young people experience from the church/school/family after coming out, but I have.

You may not have had to visit a young gay person in the hospital after they attempted suicide because of what their church/school/family did to them, but I have.

You are incredibly comfortable in your pious sense of self-righteousness, but you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

The very verse you’ve quoted says that we, as Christians, are to be ministers of reconciliation. But you are content at being arbiters of division, judgement and condemnation.

There is no love in your words.

Nathan Black
Nathan Black (http://www.myspace.com/nathanatx) on 2 Apr 2007 at 6:09 pm (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/#comment-354):
…for clarification…
I am involved with Soulforce as a volunteer and member.
I am a Deacon and young adult ministry leader at MCC Austin.
I am a future student of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Nathan Black (http://www.myspace.com/nathanatx) on 2 Apr 2007 at 6:17 pm (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/#comment-355):

Phillip's response...
Nathan,
You are right… I have never experienced the devastation of rejection from my family or church because of my sexual orientation. And no, I also have never visited a young gay person in the hospital after a suicide attempt.
But I have watched my best friend be carried out to an ambulance on a stretcher while gasping for breath.. after downing 20 pills in an attempt to end her life. She was sexually abused and raped… it wasn’t her fault, but she still suffered the consequences. There have been few nights that I have ever cried harder…

I came home one night to hear my mom tell me she had cancer. She told me it would be a long road and then whispered, “Can you make it with us?” I have watched my mom suffer from agressive breast cancer… and lose every hair on her head one by one. I lived with the reality that my mom might not live another five years (that was four years ago) because of her cancer. I watched her and my own family suffer through the devastation that comes from that.

I have suffered rejection. I have suffered the pain of almost losing a loved one. I know your pain, Nathan…perhaps on a different level of experience. But the result is the same - pain, suffering, and rejection.
Nathan, I don’t condemn you or any of the Soul Force riders. My heart goes out to you. I spent three hours today talking with the Equality Riders that came to Covenant - about homosexuality, about blogs, about life, about the weather, about the Bible, about friends, and just life…

I don’t condemn you or desire to cause division - and I do believe we have the responsibility to be ministers of reconciliation. My hope and pray is that Soul Force can and does indeed recognize that as well… as well as Covenant College as a whole.
Philip Codington (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/) on 2 Apr 2007 at 7:20 pm (http://philip.blogs.covenant.edu/2007/03/28/equality-ride/#comment-356):

And my most recent response:
Philip,
Do you get that you are comparing yourself(and Covenant) with a rapist and life-destroying cancer?

You are very clear that your friend suffered horribly at the hands of her abuser. You are very clear of the pain your mother endured because of cancer.

However, you are not clear at all of the suffering that your beliefs and the policies of Covenant inflict on LGBT students.

Philip, I believe in your intent. I believe your heart is in the right place. I just don’t think you have really listened to the those who have suffered because of what you have been taught and are now promoting.

You say that you are acquainted with pain. My brother, I’m asking you to hear and feel the pain of LGBT students and then to look down at your hands and see the cause of their pain.

Peace,
Nathan Black

[keltic63]

I replied, although I wasn't nearly as eloquent :(

[u-dog]

Nicely done Nate! You are a powerful Wordsmith. <<"The force is strong in this one ! Very strong." >>

[ml1]

Emproph - Here are a few answers for you & the others. I will start with the "easy" ones first.

I have numbered these so I can find them again more easily later.

1. PCA stands for Presbyterian Church in America. It split off from the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church in the USA) a few decades ago. The PCUSA is MUCH larger than we are, and I believe most Presbyterians belong to them.

2. You are correct that I had wrong assumptions about SF. I would have been better off to say "posters I have read on this site" rather than "members of SF".

3. You asked my stance on remarriage of a divorcee. The PCA is careful to work against divorce, and to make sure that if it happens it is for Biblical reasons. If a couple is contemplating divorce the Session of their church should (and usually does) counsel them strongly. The Session will also tell them if they don't think their divorce is Biblical. Remarriage would have the same scrutiny - was the person's divorce Biblical? If not, then no, the PCA does not sanction that remarriage. There are "gray" situations not spelled out in the Bible - abusive husbands, illegal lifestyle, etc; but not being an Elder, I have never had to do any of the counseling. Since most of these situations are treated with the strictest confidence, many in the church are not even aware.

4. After reading your last post, I have figured out why you think I am a liar on the issues of big and little sins. This should clarify MUCH for our discussion. When I say all sins are "equal," I am defining sin as "wrongdoing against GOD". Your definition seems to be "wrongdoing against MAN." So for the sake of clarification, I propose that we define 'sin' as against God and maybe 'wrongdoing' as against man. That said, I would stick by saying that all sins are equal. But I would also agree with you that all wrongdoings are NOT equal. They are not (and should not be) treated as equal by the law or by the individual. OBVIOUSLY stealing a paper clip is not as bad of a wrongdoing as killing someone. So the point I am making is that while there ARE people out there who say homosexuality is a sin worse than other sins, they are wrong and most PCA'rs would not agree with them.

5. #4 should help you understand why it is NOT inconsistent for me to say that while the Bible is 100% applicable, we do not have to follow the ceremonial or judicial law found in the OT.

The moral law is the overall description of WHAT should be called sin (note - sin against God). It is consistent between the OT and the NT. There is nothing contradictory (you will find nothing in the OT that is sinful that is called "good" in the NT).

The Judicial Law dealt not with WHAT was bad, but dealt with what the Nation of Israel's punishments for that sin should be. So, specifics such as stoning, cutting off hands, etc are dictated as the "law of the land."

The Ceremonial Law does not deal with WHAT is sin, nor does it deal with how to PUNISH sin. It deals with how Israel (both as a nation and as individuals) was reconciled to God - through sacrifice. It deals with things that are clean and unclean (which effect the relationship with and worship of God). Questions about why certain things are unclean or clean should be directed to your local Jewish scholars. I have no idea. It also deals with the specifics of the act of worship. The ceremonial law, with the hindsight of the NT, was symbolic of the relationship of God to man and the final sacrifice to be given through Christ. So we no longer have to worship in the tabernacle, with a veil separating us from the Most Holy God. The veil was rent when Christ died (literally and figuratively). We no longer have to pick an unblemished lamb to represent purity on which to lay our sins. Our sins have been laid on the unblemished purity of the Son of God, wholly and forever.

6. Thank you for giving me permission to be saved.

You know very well that is not the stance I am taking. The point I was making is that it is wrong for a conservative to say there is no way a homosexual is a Christian. I used the terms "Can Be" and that was obviously interpreted by you as meaning "has potential to be in the future" instead of "might be ALREADY."

7. Thank everyone for the reading lists. I really am pretty innocent in knowledge as pertains to abusive behavior toward gays. I find physical violence against gays abhorrent and inexcusable, and it should be punished to the full extent of the law. I have heard the term "spiritual violence," and have a few issues with it - basically, we see ourselves as calling sin "sin." If this causes discomfort for the recipient, be it homosexuality, heterosexual adultery, illegal downloading of music, etc, so be it. Are you doing "spiritual violence" to ME when you call me a bigot? No, you are telling me you think I am sinning. You have the OBLIGATION to tell me that if you believe it true. If I am sinning and am not repentant of that sin, you should care enough about me to try to bring me back in line. I know many homosexuals say, "Don't claim you care about us!" but I would say many of genuinely DO.

8. You portray your sin as equal to mine in order to obfusacate the intentional isolation of my particular sin from your own.

No, I portray my sin (not wrongdoing) and yours as equal because if viewed in terms of #4 above, they ARE. I am trying to be careful not to be viewed as "attacking" homosexuals. I am trying to show that I view you as just as valuable to God as I am. And no, I am not "speaking for God." He has already spoken, and I am merely stating my interpretation of what I think He said.

9. I can not find the post, but someone said that since I am part of the group that is the "oppressor" that I can not possibly understand your "side" of things. The only purpose in a statement like that is to shut down the conversation. Basically, if you label me as the oppressor, it means you don't have to give anything I say any merit. It is an excuse not to converse.

10. antonyh posted:
My only comment here is that you're reducing everything to sex. I didn't come out so that I could get my rocks off. I came out because I wanted to find love, to find someone to make a life with, to find committed companionship. Yes, sex is part of that, but not the whole thing. I have a partner and we live together in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship. We are very happy together. The only rub is that we can't seem to find anyone to marry us.

I really do understand what you are saying here. But I would ask this question (which by no means ends the discussion) - What is the difference between me being roomates with my best male friend, having devotions with him, sharing life with him, crying or laughing with him and your relationship with your partner? Is there anything different that is not related to the physical aspect? I would state that you are probably closer to your partner than I would ever be with my best friend, but I would also says that physical intimacy helps contribute to the spiritual and intellectual intimacy. This is true of heterosexuals to. A husband and wife's physical intimacy makes the rest of their relationship more open and honest, and thus, closer.

11. You're saying celibacy is doable, but you're saying not over a whole lifetime. In other words, you feel the pain. Can you imagine not scratching your itch for the rest of your life? Hell no.

I have a hard time imagining it, but it is always a possibility. Keep in mind Paul was celibate. He said (this is a bad paraphrase) "I wish that all men could be like me" regarding he celibacy. His point being that marriage and earthly relationships get in the way of dedicating all of our being and life to God's service. The fact that he said that also points out that he knew most men could NOT have that level of dedication to God's service. (I just now red u-dog's post and he said all of this much better than I did.)

Also, God promises He "will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can endure, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also." So if I scratch my itch, it is a direct rebellion against Him and the "way of escape" He has provided. While I am sure I will stumble again, I am without excuse if I do so.

12. So why aren't you dating?
Several reasons that I don't mind sharing.

First, for a while I was not in a financially viable situation. It would have been irresponsible for me to do so. Now, if "she" had come along and hit me over the head, I would certainly have dated "her."

Second, I mentioned earlier that adultery is a past sin and a current temptation. I LIKE sex (who doesn't?). My last dating experience was based almost entirely on sex, which resulted in me "falling away" from church and really not liking myself much. So for a while I was, I guess, afraid of myself.
As a result of this period of regret, I have become much better able to discern the inner beauty of women as opposed to letting my hormones go haywire. I honestly think I will be a better husband to my wife because of the learning I have undergone. I am now turned off entirely by smuttiness and lewdness, so it would be hard for me to fall into temptations of pornography or cheating on my wife.

I am now looking. About a year and a half ago I started dating a little, and certainly hope to do so more now. I am currently considering a move, so that is putting a slight barrier in the road, but...we'll see!

[NathanATX]

I replied, although I wasn't nearly as eloquent :(

Keltic & Daniel, I can't find any comments posted by either of you.
Nate

[Emproph]

After reading your last post, I have figured out why you think I am a liar on the issues of big and little sins. This should clarify MUCH for our discussion. When I say all sins are "equal," I am defining sin as "wrongdoing against GOD". Your definition seems to be "wrongdoing against MAN."

It is, I'm saying there's no difference.

[Emproph]

I am not "speaking for God." He has already spoken

But who says he has already spoken?

[revtj]

As far as I'm concerned the action with Covenant is OVER. We all learned a lot.

Here are the facts:

1. The president was willing to welcome them to campus initially.

2. Administrative and Alumni personnel convinced him otherwise, based mostly on 3 things:

A. Perverse fear of where the ERs would go on campus: Dorm Rooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.;

B. Fear of donors misunderstanding any hospitality shown to the ERs;

C. False and exaggerated reports of what had happened at Lee last year.

4. Well dressed ERs attempted to join Covenant students in chapel and they were arrested, denied the right to worship with their christian peers.

5. Covenant claimed the role of victim long before the event ever happened.

6. Not all students agreed with the college's action as taken. We will never know if it was a majority because the school newspaper is edited by administrative staff, so it is more a piece of propaganda than a genuine reflection of student opinion. The college community is apparently not, to some extent, reflected in the actions of the corporation.

In essence, we know what the corporation values from how its officers treated us. False stereotypes, rumors, and most of all money were their chief concerns over and against christian testimony, prayer, worship, factual, truth-based conversation with christian sisters and brothers.

The Riders are now headed to other schools. I believe my friends and colleagues on this website will agree with me that the most important conversation that can happen now is the one that will happen in the Covenant College community and we hope the impact of the E-Riders keeps that conversation alive for years. It can only help.

I think CCers would be pleased to go back to sites, such as the Bagpipe Online or Josiah's blog to post your reactions & thoughts. That's the most important conversation for you and the Covenant community now. I see no reason for us to continue to parse out every nuance of a righteous and just action that took place yesterday, as, in the words of Mel White, "The Debate is Over (http://www.soulforce.org/article/585)."

[antonyh]

I really do understand what you are saying here. But I would ask this question (which by no means ends the discussion) - What is the difference between me being roomates with my best male friend, having devotions with him, sharing life with him, crying or laughing with him and your relationship with your partner? Is there anything different that is not related to the physical aspect?


You answered the question for me, and it was decent answer:


I would state that you are probably closer to your partner than I would ever be with my best friend, but I would also says that physical intimacy helps contribute to the spiritual and intellectual intimacy. This is true of heterosexuals to. A husband and wife's physical intimacy makes the rest of their relationship more open and honest, and thus, closer.


Thank you for acknowledging that this exists in a gay relationship.


You're saying celibacy is doable, but you're saying not over a whole lifetime. In other words, you feel the pain. Can you imagine not scratching your itch for the rest of your life? Hell no.

I have a hard time imagining it, but it is always a possibility. Keep in mind Paul was celibate. He said (this is a bad paraphrase) "I wish that all men could be like me" regarding he celibacy. His point being that marriage and earthly relationships get in the way of dedicating all of our being and life to God's service. The fact that he said that also points out that he knew most men could NOT have that level of dedication to God's service. (I just now red u-dog's post and he said all of this much better than I did.)

Also, God promises He "will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can endure, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also." So if I scratch my itch, it is a direct rebellion against Him and the "way of escape" He has provided. While I am sure I will stumble again, I am without excuse if I do so.


Just like you want to channel your sexual desires into a committed relationship, gay and lesbian people also need that option as well. Your concern about "stumbling again" only goes to show how ever present our sexuality really is. LGBTQ people are just as bad at celebacy as heterosexuals. Trust me on this one, just go to a gay bar at 2:00 a.m.

If recent times have taught us anything, celibacy can be dangerous and distorting to human sexuality. I am referring to the scandals in the priesthood of the Roman Catholic church.

I think this boils down to "love your neighbor as yourself". If you can't handle celibacy, don't expect LGBTQ people to handle celibacy. We share a common humanity.

Don't let financial stability get in your way of dating. If a girl is willing to fall in love with you when the 'stock is low', you've got a keeper. In the Episcopal Celebration of a Marriage it says:


The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity...

[revtj]

http://www.wdef.com/video/extra_coverage/soulforce1.asf

[keltic63]

Keltic & Daniel, I can't find any comments posted by either of you.
Nate

Perhaps he needs to approve the comments before they show up. I just took a look from here at home & I don't see either of them.

[NathanATX]

Perhaps he needs to approve the comments before they show up. I just took a look from here at home & I don't see either of them.

Mine get posted immediately.
Nate

[keltic63]

I tried again:

I tried to post this morning. It isn't showing up here yet. I'll try to reconstruct that post here.
Reading this entry of the blog was difficult. In it, I hear words of judgment while the speaker is claiming to be nonjudgmental. I hear myself being called a pornographer, an alcoholic, & a gambler. I hear my orientation referred to as a sickness, compared to an emotional problem, and a lifelong struggle with sin. This is based on one thing that is true about me: I'm gay.
If this is the love of God that you show to me, I'm grateful that all of God's children are not like you.

and now that I hit the submit button, my earlier post showed up.

Daniel's post still isn't there

[Daniel]

Keltic & Daniel, I can't find any comments posted by either of you.
Nate

When I got there from my browser, I see my post as well as yours Nate. Seeing that Steve can't find his there either, he must be right. Mr. Covington must have either shut down posting for that 'thread' or must first approve it before it can be seen by the general public. Either that, of the page can only handle so much text? Whatever the reason, we're not getting through. Seeing that is the case, here is what I posted.

Philip,

Thank you for meeting with the ERiders. And I am glad to hear that you do not condemn them.

I am gay, quite a bit older that you at the age of 48, and graduated for Evangel College, which, I imagine, is not very different from your school in what it believes about gay people.

The stuggles you have revealed in your post above tell me that you have a caring heart, and have seen that life can be, as is for many, full of suffering. We all suffer, one way another, if we live long enough, be it mental or physical. And I believe there is only one appropriate response to suffering, either our own or that of others, and the is compasson. Without compassion, we become deaf and blind to each other. Compassion is the one thing that can draw us together. My heart goes out to you.

~

I have been married to a wonderful man for over 15 years- legally in Canada for the last two. This alone should indicate that gay persons, despite assertions to the contrary- can- and do- have long lived relationships. I am blessed with an incredble partner who has been there for me, and I for him, through many difficult times. And because of this, I am pained to read your characterization of my life as being that of that an alchoholic, drug addict and those with eating disorders. It simply is not true. And I can only imagine that your assertion was made without adequate reflection or real knowledge.

My love for my husband is not a dysfunction. It is a reality. I hope, in time, that you will come to see this.

I wish you peace and joy as well as healing for your loved ones.

[antonyh]

Here is a copy of Covenant College's offer to the Equality Riders:

http://www.covenant.edu/news/images/02.09.07.gif

After the Equality Ride turned down the above offer, here is the email the administration issued to students:

http://chattablogs.com/quintus/equality-ride-covenant.pdf

I would be interested in people's opinions about these.

[Daniel]

Anthony- Thanks for posting these documents.

To be honest, the first one, which relegated Soulforce to a room, and mandated administrative oversight at every point, stuck me as the tactics used in communiist China and Russia during the Cold War. You couldn't make a move without someone looking over your back. It's very hard to have a meaningful conversation under such conditions, and as such, I can see why Soulforce would turn these conditions down.

And then there is this passgage from the second document.

Many African-Americans, including almost all Biblebelieving African-American Christians, regard this comparison as wrong and even insulting, correctly recognizing the wide gulf of difference between the moral mandate to affirm the dignity and equality of all human beings regardless of race and the attempt in this case to rationalize immoral behavior.

Well. One understands the state of affairs pretty quicky in light of the last two words: 'immoral behavior'. Here, gay people are equated with behavior, and have no standing as a class. This is the cruz of the matter. Clearly, those at Covenant cannot see that one can be gay and christian.

And this defense is a poor one. Apparently, since the perspective is that African Americans are homophobic and jealous of anyone obtaining a piece of the pie called civil rights (there must not be any more to go around), this is a green light for Covenant's homophobia. And yes, it is homophobia. Yes. It exists in the African American Community. As it does eveywhere. But I guess Covenant isn't aware of the support for equal rights for gay people by the descendents of King and Gandhi.

And then there is this passage.

Why would we believe that an appropriate way to care for students struggling with sexual identity is to have them “ministered” to by those who claim to have found the peace of Christ and personal fulfillment in homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle? If a student struggles with a gambling addiction, we would not expect real biblical help for this student from a gambling addict who encourages the student in the addiction. If a married member of our campus community is engaged in an adulterous relationship, we would not expect real biblical help from an adulterer who brings the “good news” of the joys of extramarital relations.

Here being gay is compared to an addiction and adultery. And the use of the word 'lifestyle' is a classic smear. Sigh.....it seems that old stereotypes live on and on independent of facts.

Just in case you are reading Covenant College, gay people have lives.

There is also the phrase "those who claim" which, in itself, reveals a certain level of contempt for gay persons. This indicates that the inner faith and experience of gay people - as far as it can be deduced by anyone- is known to those at Covenant. Again, this shows that being gay and being christian is not something Covenant sees as possible.

We want Covenant to be a place where these issues can be openly discussed in light of the grace and truth of Christ; we are saddened when students feel that they are not free or safe in reaching out for help.


Really? If I was a gay student, you (Covenant) would be the last people I would come out to. From what you have indicated above, I would fear the consequences. Truly I would.

Saddened? It's a nice thought, but it is misplaced. I'm sorry Covenant College, but this is not compassion, for you neither see the people whom you address- gay persons that is- or the effect that your policies and beliefs have on said persons. You think you offer love, but the only thing I read here is condemnation.

It's going to take more than lunch boxes on your part to bridge the gap.

[Watchman1]

In Waco each person arrested was fined $2000, in Chattanooga they were fined $1000. Now that there is more of a history. Imagine someone contacting all the remaining schools and all the judges and in area. Imagine each person that is arrested for now on is fined at least $1000. Who says one person can't make a difference. =) There are plenty of non-violent ways of sending a message. I have found mine. As Will Smith once said.... "Don't start nothing... won't be nothing"

[NathanATX]

When I got there from my browser, I see my post as well as yours Nate. Seeing that Steve can't find his there either, he must be right. Mr. Covington must have either shut down posting for that 'thread' or must first approve it before it can be seen by the general public. Either that, of the page can only handle so much text? Whatever the reason, we're not getting through. Seeing that is the case, here is what I posted.

He sent me an email, letting me know he's very busy with school and actually has to approve each comment. He sounds like such a sincere young man...

[revtj]

The official doctrine of the college as captured in the Westminster Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html)of faith states that God, before the foundation of the world, chose who would be saved and therefore also who would go to hell for eternity.

There is no room for true compassion in that doctrine. When these people say 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' it's like Nazi soldiers saying "I was just following orders."

Maybe they do feel something on a personal level, but ultimately, we are in a category that is of no consequence to their empire, having been previously condemned by their God, "for His own Good Pleasure (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm)."

It is these concretized categories that we must demand not be allowed to influence public laws and policy. For a long time the PCA has tolerated a subgroup of theonomists (aka Reconstructionists) who want to make Mosaic law and its penalties the law of America. More than once it has been pointed out on this website that these people have had a direct line to the current president and our fear of their agenda should be no small thing.

That is why I continue to protest Covenant College. A few warm conversations with some nice people is not enough. I want the students and the college to say NO to violent theology and NO to violent laws and policies that place gay people in a subcategory of humans without full civil liberty.

I have made this argument ad infinitum on the alumni website and the responses range from 1) it's not me, it's God who says it, to 2) then you don't believe the bible, and 3) you're not really a christian so you can't tell me anything about what I should believe. Virtually no one understands the violence embedded into this theology.

[kara speltz]

you're not really a christian so you can't tell me anything about what I should believe. Virtually no one understands the violence embedded into this theology.

It continues to amaze me that people claim to be followers of this itinerant Jewish carpenter who consistently reached out to the exile and rebuked the Pharasees, and then take the Pharasitical stand that they do.

The Gospel abounds in these stories of Jesus relationship to the exiles - the Samaritain woman at the well, who he first revealed that he was the messiah, Zaccheus the tax collector, the apostles he chose, the roman who's "friend," he cured. How do they reconcile these stories with their exclusionary policies? I just don't get it.

Kara

[Watchman1]

It continues to amaze me that people claim to be followers of this itinerant Jewish carpenter who consistently reached out to the exile and rebuked the Pharasees, and then take the Pharasitical stand that they do.

The Gospel abounds in these stories of Jesus relationship to the exiles - the Samaritain woman at the well, who he first revealed that he was the messiah, Zaccheus the tax collector, the apostles he chose, the roman who's "friend," he cured. How do they reconcile these stories with their exclusionary policies? I just don't get it.

Kara

And you seem to forget that he called them to repent from their sins... not just acknowlege them and say "that's how I was born".

[Daniel]

In Waco each person arrested was fined $2000, in Chattanooga they were fined $1000. Now that there is more of a history. Imagine someone contacting all the remaining schools and all the judges and in area. Imagine each person that is arrested for now on is fined at least $1000. Who says one person can't make a difference. =) There are plenty of non-violent ways of sending a message. I have found mine. As Will Smith once said.... "Don't start nothing... won't be nothing"

You are suggesting that judges gang up on the ERiders- make the financial penalty so stiff that it stops the Riders in the their tracks. That would be more than ample reason for a federal law suit (Suzer- what's you perspective on this legal aspect?). And proof itself of anti-gay prejudice and bigotry.

And you are correct, if the ERiders do not continue to address religious oppression, nothing will change.

WI- Your post comes across with a strong tone of sarcasm. Unfortunately, sarcasm has a unique way of ending, rather than, promoting dialogue.

The official doctrine of the college as captured in the Westminster Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html)of faith states that God, before the foundation of the world, chose who would be saved and therefore also who would go to hell for eternity.

There is no room for true compassion in that doctrine. When these people say 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' it's like Nazi soldiers saying "I was just following orders." I have made this argument ad infinitum on the alumni website and the responses range from 1) it's not me, it's God who says it, to 2) then you don't believe the bible, and 3) you're not really a christian so you can't tell me anything about what I should believe. Virtually no one understands the violence embedded into this theology.

I hear you loud and clear my brother. It is hubris in the extreme for others to discount the harm that is caused by the thinking you outline above.

And I agree, there is little compassion in evidence, much less in practice, either in your encounters with members of your Alma Mater or the two documents on this thread.

Another reason for enacting relentless nonviolence.

[Watchman1]

Since when is increasing fines for repeated offences ganging up on someone? So the 3 strike laws are now considered a gang-up? Really!? I would like to hear the legal perpective on this. =)

[revtj]

The bible is a monolithic book of covenants to them. They are very proud of the fact that this view distinguishes them from the dispensationalist view of most fundamentalists (ie Schofield).

When Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, theonomists take this to mean he never meant for Mosaic law to not be practiced.

The standard answer for why Jesus reached out to the exiled and the unclean is that he was Jesus, the Son of God and that does not mean WE should reach out to those same people. Paul says if a person persists in their sin after you have rebuked them, "with such a man, do not even eat." So since we are not the Christ, we are only to rebuke sinners and then avoid them.

Just telling you their logic. And it IS biblical but hardly rooted in the Great Law of Love.

[ml1]

The official doctrine of the college as captured in the Westminster Confession of faith states that God, before the foundation of the world, chose who would be saved and therefore also who would go to hell for eternity.

There is no room for true compassion in that doctrine. When these people say 'love the sinner, hate the sin,' it's like Nazi soldiers saying "I was just following orders."


There is a problem here, TJ. God has not "told" anyone who is saved and who is not ("following orders?"). We are to treat EVERYONE with love as if they are either our brothers (and sisters) in Christ or have potential TO be. That is why we also believe in missions & the Great Commission (Go therefore unto all nations...). The hardest-hearted convicted felon may well come to Christ (may well have been predestined to do so). WE DON'T KNOW AND DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW who is "predestined." So there is plenty of room for compassion. You know the PCA doctrine well enough not to misrepresent it as you did above.


I think CCers would be pleased to go back to sites, such as the Bagpipe Online or Josiah's blog to post your reactions & thoughts. That's the most important conversation for you and the Covenant community now. I see no reason for us to continue to parse out every nuance of a righteous and just action that took place yesterday, as, in the words of Mel White, "The Debate is Over."

In other words, you want to shut down dialog between the sides? The administrator here can at any time "shut me down." But in his initial admonishment to me (which was very politely stated) about not attacking anyone in the forums here, he also said he welcomes the dialog. The stated purpose of ER is to encourage it.

For a long time the PCA has tolerated a subgroup of theonomists (aka Reconstructionists) who want to make Mosaic law and its penalties the law of America.

The theonomists (literally "followers of God's Law") or reconstructionists (what they call themselves) DO want to reestablish Mosaic law (or the "Judicial Law" that I mentioned in an earlier post. There ARE some in the PCA, but they watched and monitored. They are a very small minority, and most PCA'rs reject their agenda entirely. That movement attracts racism (though they are not all racist) and attracts true "haters" (though not all, and I would say a minority of theonomists are "haters"). The way they view the "end times" is markedly different from how most PCA'rs view them, and their "end times theology" is what they use to justify their movement. This gets into all the Post-millenialism, Pre-millinialism, and Amillinialism. Don't ask me what they all mean - just know that if you want to validate what I am saying, you will have to expose yourself to these nuances of Christian theology regarding the end times and where we are on the "timeline" at this point in history. Theonomists are also prolific writers (some well spoken, some not). They will try to use this prolificity (is that a word) to back up their doctrine, which is a fallacy in and of itself.

[revtj]

No, I don't want to dialogue with you because of the way you treated me on the alumni blog. I honestly feel like you chased me here when I stopped responding on the alum blog.

The alumni blog is not open to anyone but alumni of Covenant. You are welcome to respond here on Soulforce, but I really wish you would spend some time prayerfully asking yourself why you want to be here.

We are not going to condone your hatefulness. Most of us here are already very certain of our faith and most of us already understand the anti-gay christianity you practice.

So, what is it you are after here? To refute our arguments and feel self-righteous?

[kara speltz]

And you seem to forget that he called them to repent from their sins... not just acknowlege them and say "that's how I was born".


Actually, you're wrong. With both Zaccheus and with the woman at the well with 5 husbands, he didn't tell them to repent at ALL. He revealed himself to the woman as the messiah, that is simply it. Go and re-read these stories, and you'll see.

[kara speltz]

I really wish you would spend some time prayerfully asking yourself why you want to be here.

We are not going to condone your hatefulness. Most of us here are already very certain of our faith and most of us already understand the anti-gay christianity you practice.

So, what is it you are after here? To refute our arguments and feel self-righteous?

My guess TJ is that like so many homophobes, the person is filled with internalized homophobia and gay themselves. To be so obsessed with what you call someone elses sin, is a clear indication, I believe.

On a daily basis, no, probably on an hourly basis, we all fall short of the mark. In Mathew Jesus makes it clear that we will be judged by whether we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. Most fundamentalists, appear to have forgotten this part of the Gospel.

I constantly fail in this. Far too often, I pass that person on the street who is in need, like the priest in the story of the Good Samaratain. Does this person actually think he has time and the capacity to ensure someone else doesn't sin, when he's not removing the plank from his own eye?

Kara

[Watchman1]

So are you actually claiming he never told people to repent?!

[revtj]

Kara did not say Jesus never told people to repent. She said Jesus didn't tell Zacchaeus or the woman at the well to repent. She encouraged you to re-read the Gospel accounts of these 2 incidents, but you didn't even read her post.

Kara I too recognize that I have not lived up to Jesus' command to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. I know he said that as we do it unto the least of these we do it unto him.

It's ironic that you mentioned this because I was thinking almost the exact same thing at lunch today, wondering whether it is worth God's time to keep engaging in an argument that seems to be going nowhere.

I really want to give up the need to "be right" about homosexuality but at the same time I cannot stop speaking up for the oppressed, those erased from history and religion. And I want the outcome to not be, "T J is right!" but rather "the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the sick are no longer shunned and lonely, and those in prisons of mind and body are set free. I don't need to be right I need to do right.

When I engage the subject of homosexuality and religion and it becomes a contest of who's right, I feel like I have wasted time, not done what my Lord has called me to do. It feels even worse when people get nasty and provocative and I am tempted to be dragged down to their level.

[kara speltz]

Kara did not say Jesus never told people to repent. She said Jesus didn't tell Zacchaeus or the woman at the well to repent. She encouraged you to re-read the Gospel accounts of these 2 incidents, but you didn't even read her post.

Kara I too recognize that I have not lived up to Jesus' command to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. I know he said that as we do it unto the least of these we do it unto him.

It's ironic that you mentioned this because I was thinking almost the exact same thing at lunch today, wondering whether it is worth God's time to keep engaging in an argument that seems to be going nowhere.

I really want to give up the need to "be right" about homosexuality but at the same time I cannot stop speaking up for the oppressed, those erased from history and religion. And I want the outcome to not be, "T J is right!" but rather "the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the sick are no longer shunned and lonely, and those in prisons of mind and body are set free. I don't need to be right I need to do right.

When I engage the subject of homosexuality and religion and it becomes a contest of who's right, I feel like I have wasted time, not done what my Lord has called me to do. It feels even worse when people get nasty and provocative and I am tempted to be dragged down to their level.

Profound TJ, it is indeed a difficult struggle not to be sucked in and I do it time and time again, unfortunately.

It is a fine line, that when I recall Jesus in the temple, even he struggled with. But as Merton said, ]"the goal of the spiritual life is not the elimination of struggle, but the santification of struggle." [/B]Let's do some sanctifying!

[dsdrane]

Amen, Sister!

:love:

[Daniel]

And you seem to forget that he called them to repent from their sins... not just acknowlege them and say "that's how I was born".

W1- While you have not said so explicitly, what you seem to be alluding to is two things.

1) Gay behavior is a sin.

2) Those who claim they are gay from birth as simply rationalizing their sinful behavior.

This seems to be a rather reductive view of things, one which squeezes all humanity out of those whom you address here.

Just because you believe this to be so does not make it so. And as such, this kind of point of view only makes gay people objects worthy of distain and condemnation. It merely blames the gay person for one's own homophobia and fearful thoughts.

[antonyh]

I am curious about why the Covenant College visit is not on the news page of Soulforce.org. Thanks.

[revtj]

Circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) and Blaming the Victim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming) are so much a part of the watertight "Christian worldview" of Covenant that it is no wonder that it produces only tiny amounts of social change, a coven of elitist academics, and virtually no sense of responsibility for their enemies, a direct contrast to Jesus' teaching.

It is throughout their history as well. Calvin tricked Servetus into a debate in his theocracy at Geneva and then had him burned at the stake. It is not known how many sodomites were bundled as kindling to start the flame. Cromwell desecrated Northern Ireland and the British monarchy, along with almost all the religious art along his way, to try and establish a theocracy, which he did briefly and bloodily. Out of this came the Westminster Confession! :confused:

But if you notice, CC posters try to distance themselves from the minority party within the PCA that advocates theocracy. They do not expel them, censure them, or issue ultimatums to them; they take their money and spend it just like any other member church.

One thing Covenant taught me: world view gives rise to deeds in history. And let's hope this is well understood by all of us before the theocrats gain any more power in America!

[suzer1013]

Daniel -- I don't have much time, but in brief reply to your question, it would not only be unethical for judges to punish Equality Riders more harshly than any other protester, if carried out as Watchman suggests, it would be an illegal abridgement of free speech rights. The E Riders are being fined for trespassing -- a misdemeanor. Not every rider is taking part in the civil disobedience aspect of the ride -- a few take part in that and suffer the consequences, and the rest of the riders continue on to the next stop.

What is telling is that someone would suggest trying to influence judges in order to shut down the ride. Our exercise of free speech is so fear-laden to those who would oppress us, that they would consider trying to sway a judge's opinion? Interesting. As I am experiencing Holy Week, and remembering Pilate's decision and how the crowd insisted upon Jesus' guilt and death -- well, this current discussion seems to have some similarities.

The 3 strikes rule simply does not apply here -- I'm not even sure all states have it, and for states that do, it applies to felonies only.

Frankly, though, even if judges were to fine E Riders as Watchman suggests, I think this plan would backfire. The effect would be to gather even more support for the Riders. Many GLBT people would be outraged upon hearing of such judicial overreaching, and would likely give more money to pay the bonds and get the riders out of jail.

Susan

[kara speltz]

I am curious about why the Covenant College visit is not on the news page of Soulforce.org. Thanks.

Check the blogs. There's coverage there from one of the riders. Given the Riders are visiting usually 2 colleges or more a week per bus, Soulforce doesn't always do press releases on all of them. But there is an excellent report on the bus blogs. Kara

[Watchman1]

If you want to protest... protest all you want. It's your right. What I'm was wandering, do the the colleges have the right to ask for higher fines for repeated offenders? I'm not saying fine soulforce people anymore than other protesters. But do not repeated law-breakers normally get stiffer penalties?

[nmwolfboy]

If you want to protest... protest all you want. It's your right. What I'm was wandering, do the the colleges have the right to ask for higher fines for repeated offenders? I'm not saying fine soulforce people anymore than other protesters. But do not repeated law-breakers normally get stiffer penalties?

i'm no legal expert, but i believe sentencing most often varies from locale to locale. Some judges and magistrates may also be governed by mandatory sentencing guidelines, while others have much more discretionary sentencing authority. Regardless, isn't trespassing nearly always a misdemeanor?

[Daniel]

If you want to protest... protest all you want. It's your right. What I'm was wandering, do the the colleges have the right to ask for higher fines for repeated offenders? I'm not saying fine soulforce people anymore than other protesters. But do not repeated law-breakers normally get stiffer penalties?

Suzer- thank you for your post! It clarify's things a great deal for one who studies your words carefully for their logic and reasoning. I wish you a Blessed Holy Week.

M1- The answer to your question is contained within Suzer's post. If you read her post carefully, I think you will find that your suggestion is beyond the pale. What you posit amounts to undue influence. And our system of justice is set up to avoid such scenarios- which - if you were to have your way- would amount to the judiciary being motivated by a 'mob'.

Again- your point of view seems- to this reader- to keep reaching for avenues which lead to condemnation. And curiously, this stance echos the policies of the school under discussion.

[Emproph]

I am curious about why the Covenant College visit is not on the news page of Soulforce.org. Thanks.

Here's the blog entry:
http://www.soulforce.org/blogs/113

[ml1]

TJ -

No, I don't want to dialogue with you because of the way you treated me on the alumni blog. I honestly feel like you chased me here when I stopped responding on the alum blog.

Originally I came to the SF site to refute some misrepresentations of Covenant and its alumni. There was only one person making those representations. So in a sense, I followed you here (not "chased"). I had been reading posts over here for a while, but not until I saw those misrepresentations did I decide to post anything myself. In the case of my last post, I am defending the denomination I belong to.

Once here, I realized that while there is no way either "side" here will convince the other I could still contribute to understanding in both directions. We should pray that God will work His will. If I am a bigot, then He might bring me around through our dialog. IF homosexuality is sinful, then He might bring y'all around. But it won't be from my or your efforts that this is accomplished.

I have tried to keep my posts honest (stating what I actually believe) and Non-offensive (though firm in my "defense", as here). Again I apologize if I seemed to be "chasing" you. I am not. But I WILL respond to posts that attack my worldview.

If more of you would like me to go, then go I will. Please let me know. If you want me to stay, let me know. If you think I am contributing to your understanding of the "other side" of the discussion or if you think I am being hateful, let me know.

Now, back to the Theonomy thing. Within ANY group, conservative, liberal, Christian, Pagan, whatever, there are bad apples. Not all theonomists are "bad." While all of them by definition think that the Judicial law given to Israel was NOT abolished by Christ and that it should apply to us today, SOME of them use that idea to justify all kinds of weird, even violent, ideas. Any of these nuts DO get censured by the PCA, and teaching of any heretical or sinful behavior is addressed by the denomination. The vast majority of theonomists are not in that category - yes they want God's law reestablished, but they are not hateful. And keep in mind that theonomists are leaving the PCA in general. For a while they were going to the RPC (Reformed Presbyterian Church). Now I think they have their own denomination, though I can not tell you what that is. I used to be good friends with a fellow until he went off to a theonomic college and became one of those nuts. He turned racist. He stockpiles guns (all legal as far as I know, but ready to take on that evil pagan govunmint). He (thankfully) wants nothing to do with the PCA because we are not on board with his views.

[ml1]

Kara -

My guess TJ is that like so many homophobes, the person is filled with internalized homophobia and gay themselves. To be so obsessed with what you call someone elses sin, is a clear indication, I believe.

So, by your logic, since people on this thread seem to be obsessed with condemning conservative beliefs, you must all be closet conservatives...?

[ml1]

I read this on a Tshirt yesterday - I could not read the name of the person being quoted -

"I would agree with you, but then we would both just be wrong."

[scott snedeker]

Watchman 1,

Imagine the time in your adolescence when you were discovering your sexual awareness. Now Imagine being told that your feelings of sexual attraction make you a worthless deviant because you feel them toward the same sex. So to survive you hide this secret and stifle the growth of your emerging dentity and learn to hate yourself.

This I Fear is psychological child abuse at its worst.

Then imagine the miracle of courageously overcoming this self loathing
imposed by your past abuse. This epiphany restores your sense that you are a person deserving of happiness, equal worthiness and love. A hard fought internal struggle won by myself and many other gay people.

Acceptance and affirmation of your own NATURE is the foundation of Spirituality

Some say being gay is a choice. They are half right. You can choose to be
true to your nature and experience passion, romance and love, all essential
parts of a balanced normal life. Or you can falsely pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex and live an empty passionless lie.

So are homosexuals created with the trait of attraction to the same sex like me, but only become an abomination if they make love to the one to which they feel passion and holds their heart? This then would make them second class humans by God's design to be admonished by clergy that they are not entitled to this Joy of loving while God's chosen, heterosexuals are entitled with his blessing. This second class human status was "God's design" for africans according to clergy 100 years ago. If the resemblence makes you uncomfortable that is a good sign. If it doesn't your disconnection with unconditional love is wounding you spiritually.

There is no verse in the Bible that can leap off the page and harm anyone. The only harm comes from what some one might do to you in the name of their God. Violence in spirit or material form is not God's will. If a verse causes you to feel fearful, negatively, or angry toward yourself or others, then you are just not ready at this time to understand it. Select another verse that makes you feel love toward yourself and others for this is God's message that you are ready to understand.

God wishes us to love one another (man or woman) so that he can share in our joy!

He doesn't hate no matter who claims he does. Not even if biblical verses claim he does. He put them there for us to realize these claims are false no matter where they are spoken or written. To test and strengthen the faith of his unconditional love.

My part in soulforce is to spread this message of unconditional love; a message so needed in gay folks who are not in good connection with their entitlement to the unconditional love of self, and to others who's barrier to love prevents them from sharing it with gay people.

I hope my view will give you the tools start to break down your barrier to unconditional love

[antonyh]

"I promise to reject violence (of the fist, tongue, or heart) and to use only the methods of nonviolence in my search for truth or in my confrontation with untruth."

There have been a lot of unkind (violent?) words used on this thread. I just wish we could have these discussions using Soulforce.

[Daniel]

"I promise to reject violence (of the fist, tongue, or heart) and to use only the methods of nonviolence in my search for truth or in my confrontation with untruth."

There have been a lot of unkind (violent?) words used on this thread. I just wish we could have these discussions using Soulforce.

My sense it that everyone here is on something a learning curve. And I feel like I'm still at the beginning of the journey.

I think another matter is crucial here. We do not have the benefit of facial expressions and body language, all of which would be in evidence in a 3D interaction. Rather, all we have is text on a page which is filtered through a person's consciousness and writing skills (spelling seems to be my own bête noire. :rolleyes: ), or lack thereof. To be sure, some of us are better in person! :lol:

That said, I agree with you.

I guess my point is that it is so easy to misunderstand one another here, especially when the dialogue is between two dissimilar worldviews. In that case, there is always the danger that there will be more heat than light.

[Emproph]

Michael,

I just wanted to say thank you for the clarifications – what PCA / PCUSA means and on how you/the PCA view adultery/remarriage. It’s a much more Biblically consistent position than I’m used to.

Beyond that, we’d pretty much have to hash out our basal differences about ‘Biblical logic,’ inerrancy/applicability/sin/wrongdoing and such, in another thread.
~~
I can not find the post, but someone said that since I am part of the group that is the "oppressor" that I can not possibly understand your "side" of things. The only purpose in a statement like that is to shut down the conversation. Basically, if you label me as the oppressor, it means you don't have to give anything I say any merit. It is an excuse not to converse.
I know I referred to you as “oppressor.” I don’t know if that’s the post you were talking about but I take responsibility for it. I agree with what you said above, admittedly I am angry and defensive and I think I have been judging you, to a significant extent, unfairly.

So just to let you know, your clarifications and willingness to engage has not gone unnoticed and I appreciate it. I can’t promise I won’t fail or be mean again, but I’m open and I appreciate your patience with me.
~~
That is pretty much my point - most of the Covenant Alumni (not all) would say that really is the only option. I know you don't care for that, but not liking it won't change it. Where you should focus if you want to attack that worldview is on convincing them (us) that our interpretation of the Bible is wrong. That the numerous references in the Bible really WERE only intended for that culture. That the term "natural" (exchanged the unnatural for the natural) really meant "natural for each individual on their terms", and not "natural as conservatives think God planned it."

See now even though you may be convinced that no one will ever change your mind on this, at least that proposition is honest, at least much more so than I’m used to. Obviously anyone who is decidedly anti-gay is going to see only what they want to.

But that's often what we talk about around here (the part in bold). Ultimately though, how to do that without it being percieved as an attack?

If they really want to know about..
That the term "natural" (exchanged the unnatural for the natural) really meant "natural for each individual on their terms", and not "natural as conservatives think God planned it."
All they would have to do was ask gay people, they’ll pretty much get the same answer every time. So if the bulk of first hand eye-witness testimony doesn’t count...

My point of contention (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=19945&postcount=5) would be with the word “exchanged.” There may be some who’s sexuality is fluid enough to apply such a term to, but it implies the existence of heterosexuality first, which was then given up and “exchanged” for homosexuality. Few people in my experience (if any) would characterize their same-sex attraction as something that was received in “exchange” for heterosexuality. And like I explained in the hyperlink, even if that were the case, you’d have to blame me/us for having done so as a child – without memory of having done so. And really the whole point of that passage is to link homosexuality with the INTENTION of evil.

What occurred to me as a possibility, was that perhaps it was Paul’s personal explanation of homosexual behavior, as happens in prison settings. The criminal mind may lead one to homosexual behavior, but homosexual behavior does not make the homosexual. He may have been conflating the two, which Covenant College is apparently still intent on doing (http://chattablogs.com/quintus/equality-ride-covenant.pdf).

For the sake of argument though, technically it could be the opposite, where as Paul may have been describing born-gay people who are openly accepted in an criminal society where 'anything' goes.

The first explanation strikes me as more plausible though, because as I said, the point of the passage seems to be to link the idea of “unnatural relations” with the INTENTION of evil, and not a society already intent on evil that accepts homosexuality by default.

Though I suppose I can understand how some might see it that way. Case in point though, people are fighting for the right of their socially productive relationships to be legally recognized, not for evil to be recognized as socially productive.

As I see it, the entire purpose of the USE of Romans 1 is to link same-sex attraction with the intention of evil in order to justify it arbitrarily where there is no evil to be found. (or at least no more so than anywhere else)

And this they do too. By their use of the idea of "corporate" sin. Man is fallen. We were born homosexual, but the only way for us to get to heaven is live without love. And even Stan Jones (http://chattablogs.com/quintus/equality-ride-covenant.pdf) gets around that little unpleasantry by insinuating that I'm too stupid to know what love is. (the link is from Covenant College again, my point is from his book " Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the Church's moral debate")

And to be clear, my complaint is not with his conclusion, it's with the dishonesty of his need for insinuation. Which ultimately comes down to the need to be "liked," to "look" Christian. Vomit.

Anyway, just some food for thought. And like a said, If you’re starting from the conclusion (hypothetical), then no amount of witness will change your mind. Specifics of the Equality Ride visit aside (rejection of Covenant College requirements), this is how I see the Ride – as bringing that eye-witness of what “exchanged for unnatural relations” really means, and their witness proudly represents mine, I freely admit this.

We are the living breathing truth of homosexuality – NOT the living breathing embodiment of evil, that's a connection that needs to be sought out.

Think about how screwed you people would be if the Bible didn’t even mention homosexuality. What would change? Literally, what in the world would change? (Other than the prevailing conception of the current social meaning of the Bible)

You make a distinction between sin against God and wrongdoing against man.

The sin against man is the first concern, a sin against man is automatically a sin against God. A sin against God is not automatically a sin against man. We all sin against God, in that sense we are equal. We also equally do not know how much weachother sin against God, so it’s really a moot point to argue. Only God knows those sins only God can argue those sins.

If we love our neighbor as we love ourself, then there are no sins against man, period. Everything else is left up to God. And it is because we leave up to God the parts that we know that we are incapable of judging that we are able to then focus on loving our neighbor as ourself. And by so doing, we attempt to reflect back God’s love for it’s creation. By treating others as ourself we love them as God loves them. God loves them through us. Loving each other is loving God, because God is dependent upon us to bring his love for them to them.

Likewise, such is sin. By withholding our own unconditional love for others we withhold God's love for them.

It's not necessarily so much about agreeing or being pro-gay or pro anything else, I think it's often more about the dignity expressed and addressed in disagreeing.

To take it to its extreme, God doesn’t judge, because Love doesn’t judge. Love ONLY gives.

If it wasn’t for the Bible I wouldn’t be able to personally associate all of that concept with Jesus Christ, here now. A real person, a real spirit, a real god. All one, and I’m part of it and always have been, and so are you and every other part.

I don’t need the Bible to tell me that anymore. The Bible taught me that. I asked and I received, I was pure* in heart and I saw God. (I got a hell of a lot more than that, but we'll leave it at that for now...)

So it’s all true, I guess it just depends on how much we’re willing to believe in the nature of truth. If God said ask, then Good God Man, Ask To See God!

Peace,

-Patrick

--
*Love doesn’t judge. You only have to be “pure” enough to see how God sees you as pure in heart. If we don’t judge God, Love doesn’t judge us.

And P.S. I would like you to stay. I think you’re contributing to my understanding of your worldview, but more importantly that you’re making every effort to be understood in the process of understanding us. Sincere dialogue like this is rare.

In fact, you get my first agree to disagree award :award: :disagree: :award: . I’m not quite sure what we’re disagreeing on yet, but I’m sure that when we do we’ll agree...that we're not in agreement. (my award is inspiring awkwardness already)

[Emproph]

...And this defense is a poor one. Apparently, since the perspective is that African Americans are homophobic and jealous of anyone obtaining a piece of the pie called civil rights (there must not be any more to go around), this is a green light for Covenant's homophobia.So you're saying that π is finite? :lol:

[Emproph]

Here is a copy of Covenant College's offer to the Equality Riders:

http://www.covenant.edu/news/images/02.09.07.gif
I thought that was semi-reasonable, reasonable from the perspective they're coming from. But I think Daniel waylaid their "boxed lunch" approach (despite their potentially sincere intentions).

After the Equality Ride turned down the above offer, here is the email the administration issued to students:

http://chattablogs.com/quintus/equality-ride-covenant.pdf

I would be interested in people's opinions about these.
That one however, pissed the bugger out of me.

I concur with what Daniel said and I also think it's important to offer these.

From the above link:
This year we have heard from Mike Haley, Dr. Stan Jones, and John Freeman (Director of Harvest USA), who have brought personal, scholarly, and profoundly biblical presentations to guide and help.
~~
Mike Haley. "Ex-gay" -- Focus on the Family / Love Won Out, speaker, organizer.

A few notables from his book; 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality; © 2004:
Q: My son Just told me he is gay. He says he’s finally accepted who he is and that he’s never been happier. Can this really be true?

A: If his lifestyle choices don’t change immediately, there is hope that when the feeling of relief wears off and the emptiness sets in, he will try to live his life in line with God’s will...

...In the meantime, I advise you to pray that he becomes as miserable as possible, as soon as possible, and that God will protect him through it.

The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality – it’s holiness.

While temptations [same-sex attraction] still occasionally come my way, I liken them to a pesky fly.

He also uses the verses in Leviticus to make his case against homosexuality and then glibly dismisses the need for us to be put to death. So only certain parts of Leviticus count, and only certain parts of those certain parts count. New term: Cherry knit-picking.
~~
Stanton L. Jones. Wheaton College. Now this is a man who wrote a so-called rebuttle (http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/booklets/StanJonesResponsetoMelWhite.pdf) to Mel White's "What the Bible Says and Doesn't Say about Homosexuality (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian)." He was...selective, in his rebuttle of Dr. White's work.

That's a simple way of putting it.

I've read enough of his work to say that any sincerity on his part is overshadowed by it's contrived nature. To be fair, much of my complaint with him is with the pains he takes to support his well thought out, but horrendously theoretical adherence. Dogma. As I read his work I can imagine his mind just churning and churning and..

Anyway, from the book "Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate." Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse:
"Let us give one concrete example of the clarity of what the Scriptures say on this subject...1 corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:10, used a word, arsenokoitai, translated as "pervert," "homosexual" and "homosexual offender," became the focus of heated debate. This use of the new word arsenokoitai gave ground for speculations that Paul did not know of what we understand today as homoseuxality...

Recent research has established, however, that the word arsenokoitai was created as a direct reference to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Fancy that, recent research has established that the New Testament meaning of homosexuality is in direct-reference to the Old Testament command to have us all put to death.
~~
Way to go Niel Nielson, President/Covenant College :tup:.

Was consulting some-of-the-LEAST-credible-people-on-the-planet also the result of "much prayer, counsel, and consideration?" Next year you may want to consider soliciting Paul Cameron (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4076.html) to really show us all how much you know better.

~~
(most of you can just ignore this part)
I don't know Daniel, It just feels so damn cathartic to be sarcastic about it. I mean phew! ... It's THAT ridiculous. If I'm being honest and true to Soulforce, I need to supress that ridiculousness to the best of my ability. I just have one question:
WTF do you do when the situation itself is sarcastic? :eek:

[antonyh]

I say we need to be violently non-violent. Confuse the sh**t out of 'em.


Ha ha...you brought a smile to my face.

[Daniel]

I don't know Daniel, It just feels so damn cathartic to be sarcastic about it. I mean phew! ... It's THAT ridiculous. If I'm being honest and true to Soulforce, I need to supress that ridiculousness to the best of my ability. I just have one question: WTF do you do when the situation itself is sarcastic?

Or do you mean ironic? For the situation you have outlined above, where the words of Covenant's president are contrasted to that of his sources, strikes this reader as very ironic.

Of course, if one believes the stuff coming from Haley and Jones, one sees no cause for concern, does one?

Reading your post had me shaking my head. And laughing. But that may be my own defense mechanism kicking in. Better to laugh than cry. A little sarcasm may be your saving grace my friend.

[ml1]

Emproph -

Thanks for encouraging me to stay. Your last post was very eloquent...
Probably, I have said most of what I have to say - we know where we disagree and where we agree.

For the record, while I still don't agree with y'all, I probably AM more sensitive to who you are (who homosexual Christians are) through the dialog here. I sincerely appreciate y'all's (how is that for grammar?) willingness to let me post and interact with you.

I will still read over here, and if anyone has any questions for me, feel free to ask. If I were a Bible scholar, I would get more into the Greek & Hebrew, etc to study what is actually there. But since I am not, I don't see where our conversation will go a whole lot further (maybe I am wrong?). Both sides can throw out "the Greek means x or the Hebrew means y," but unless we are actually Greek and Hebrew scholars, we are merely parroting what someone else has told us.

Also, if anyone asked me any questions before that I failed to notice or answer, please point them out and I will try to do so.

One more thing that I have not brought up before. I had it typed up but the site erased that post before it was actually posted (I enabled scripts which refreshed the page). I have some current interaction with a few homosexuals. We don't worry about each other's theology - we just "get along." I am in the musical world and sing in a professional choir (shameless plug: www.atlantasacredchorale.org ). While most of the folks there are Christians (there is one who said she is NOT when we were talking privately), we have very diverse backgrounds and some are homosexual. We get along just fine. So I AM capable of interacting with homosexual Christians in a non-confrontational environment. In fact, two of my favorite people in that group I think are both gay (one is for sure, the other I believe to be). Amazing how well our voices blend together...

[u-dog]

I would suggest more harmonizing and less theologizing... its probably closer to the heart of God in any case !!:sing:

ALSO, Michael, I still am aching for an answer to the question: Where in the Bible is the tripartite classification of the law found? :reading: and if you feel up to it... Where does the Bible suggest that it should be read inerrantly?
:dove:
Dave

[ml1]

I will try to tackle those questions u-dog, but they are not short answers. In fact, probably close to impossible in a forum setting - sort of like if you asked me to define that premillinialism vs postmillenialism thing - there are whole textbooks written just on those topics. Therefore, let me do my taxes this weekend then get back to you. :-)

[ml1]

And what is pretty cool is that I just googled "3 types of Law in Bible Ceremonial, Judicial, Moral" to try to give you some links to look at in the meantime. The very first result was... this forum!

I scanned over a couple of the other sites.

This one has a much better worded discussion of my depictions of the 3 types of law:
http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays/booklets/booklet_E.htm


This has this quote contradicting the division of the law, then goes on to address it:
Did you notice that he divided the law into three categories: moral, judicial (civil), and ceremonial. This started with Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) back in the 13th century, and most Christians seem to have adopted this division. The problem with this is that there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that the Law should be divided into three parts, such as the ceremonial Law, the civil Law and the moral Law. Most teach that God has done away with the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law but not with the moral aspect of the Law. Such a distinction is not drawn anywhere in the Scriptures. The Law is viewed as a unit or as a whole. James said that anyone who breaks one point of the Law, breaks the whole Law.

James 2:10 (NKJV) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

No distinction is made between different types of the Law. The Old Testament Jews who violated a ceremonial aspect of the Law were morally guilty of sin before God. Therefore, the moral and ceremonial aspects went together.

This is fun, but I have GOT to do the taxes. Render unto Ceasar his due...

[Zerbie]

I will still read over here, and if anyone has any questions for me, feel free to ask. If I were a Bible scholar, I would get more into the Greek & Hebrew, etc


. I have some current interaction with a few homosexuals. We don't worry about each other's theology - we just "get along." I am in the musical world and sing in a professional choir . While most of the folks there are Christians (there is one who said she is NOT when we were talking privately), we have very diverse backgrounds and some are homosexual. We get along just fine. So I AM capable of interacting with homosexual Christians in a non-confrontational environment. In fact, two of my favorite people in that group I think are both gay (one is for sure, the other I believe to be). Amazing how well our voices blend together...

Hi again Michael,

Thanks for sharing that last bit. Yes, as you've pointed out here it's very possible for people, wherever they are on the alphabet soup list (LGBTQ or S) to get along congenially, such as in a work setting (or anything with a common task.) Didn't know you were a fellow pro singer, btw, that's fun to know ;) :sing: . In my everyday environment we have a mix, too - there are some folks who are fairly conservative Christians, some non-christians, as well as some gay people who float everywhere along the religious conservative-progressive spectrum. We all get along quite well, know each other well, and I dare say there is a great deal of affection, even a sense of family and love. In our day-to-day world, there's no more to ask than that.

I do have a request for you though, and I don't know if it's something you've considered on before, or if so, what your thoughts are. It's this: whatever your theological views may be, can you/do you see your way to standing up for the *civil* and *legal* rights and protections that society's institutions deny to your gay colleagues?

Especially in light of you sharing that some of your favorite people in your choir are gay (or at least, one is) - seeing that you care about someone who is gay, then it stands to reason that you would support employment and housing protections for your friend (and millions of others who share that trait with him.) I don't know what the case is in Atlanta, GA, but in 33 states in the US, a person can be fired from a job or denied housing for no other reason than for being gay. And it actually DOES happen. Few states have non-discrimination protections for gay persons, and there is NO federal employment protection. I hope you are someone who, since you have at least one gay friend who you like a lot, will stand up for basic protections such as these. I hope you will speak out for equal protection under the law for your respected colleague; he deserves no less.

[revtj]

This is one student's editorial after the Soulforce visit. I can't understand how he left out communism, but every other unfounded, unrelated but inflammatory jibe is here...it's an illogical trip through labels like "neopagan" and "Unitarian cult" which leads us to the abomination of homosexuality...


http://www.bagpipeonline.com/index.php?path=/archives/000656.php

[Daniel]

Revtj- thanks for your post. The author makes quite a few leaps of logic- or would that be leaping over logic- in the first two paragraphs?


The Bible begins in Genesis 1:1 with a cosmological statement of great magnitude. Right at the start we read of a Creator-creation distinction that is the basis for our faith and our salvation. A divine and higher being created us, and we, his creation, owe him worship, for we are under his watch and care. Without this distinction, we are masters of our own fate and owe worship to no one. Our lives’ worth is determined only by our usefulness, not by the fact that we are made in that divine being’s image and are loved deeply by him.

Neo-paganism breaks down this distinction and all of its important scientific implications, blurring the dichotomy of the creature and Creator. The divine is in all of us, and therefore our faith is based on our own, personal search for the god within us.

Labels are convenient, aren't they? Don't like what you're hearing from someone? Slap a label on them.

Understanding another human being demands something else entirely.

[Emproph]

Neo-paganism...blurring the dichotomy of the creature and Creator...

..Homosexuality. Along with the breakdown of distinction between Creator and creature comes the breakdown of distinctions like good and evil or even male and female.

..How do we know neo-paganism when we see it?
How is it possible to describe one's own self in a nutshell and actually think you're talking about someone else (homosexuality)?

How do you know Neo-paganism Thomas O'ban? Just look in the mirror. You blur the "dichotomy of creature and Creator" by thinking you are SO divine as to personally search for the cherry-picking god within yourself. The one that's too stupid to know the difference between the comparisons between good and evil, and male and female.
---
Considering how SHEERLY hateful, bigoted, and downright dishonestly EVIL President Neil Neilson's letter to the students regarding the Equality Riders was, it's really no wonder that Covenant College churns out such effective ostriches.
--
Communism? What about the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the theory of evolution is a fact?

Hitler was gay. That's all they need to say.
--
I'm so stupid I don't even know I'm actually attracted to the opposite gender, yet I can demonize myself infinitely better than heterosexual "Christians."
--

I'll admit it, NOW I'm confused!

[u-dog]

Homosexuality. Along with the breakdown of distinction between Creator and creature comes the breakdown of distinctions like good and evil or even male and female. A biblical cosmology becomes a homo-cosmology, a viewing of the world’s polar distinctions as one. With a homo-cosmology comes a homo-epistemology, approaching truth and knowledge from a “one” aspect, and with a homo-epistemology, homosexuality follows naturally.

:rolleyes: :lol: Oh brother! can you say SOPHOMORIC? (which, as we all know means "wise - fool" and in his case its a little more "MORE" and little less "Soph"

(No offense to any our OUR clever and erudite youngsters who are WAY MORE SOPH and hardly "MORE" at all !;) )

[revtj]

Labels are convenient, aren't they? Don't like what you're hearing from someone? Slap a label on them.

When I left Covenant, "pagan" was the one-size-fits all pejorative label. It was defined essentially as pantheism and was likened to the Canaanites who had sexual orgies and that's why God had them all slain, men women and children, and the chosen people took their land.

Unitarianism never came up, but in their view, monolithic church history went like this: After the acension of Christ, the Holy Spirit stopped working miracles, so the Pentecostals were WRONG. After the canon was closed in 325 CE, the Bible was perfect and it's never changed since. Anyone who denied the doctrine of the trinity (exactly as formulated in the Nicene Creed) could not be a christian. In fact all the people at the hundreds of other councils that were held to discuss these issues weren't really christians because they had "mixed" paganism with scripture and were WRONG.

It would be years before I could sort out the lunacy of this sectarian view and appreciate that theological diversity exists in the Bible and in the early church. It was especially liberating to realize that Earth-based religions existed before any other, and that ALL religions owe their substance to some extent to a respect for the Earth and indigenous paganism/pantheism, so rather than demonize them, we should seek to learn from them.

Most importantly, it was liberating to give up the belief that I was right and all the others were wrong, and to build a spiritual life based not in being absolutely right but in being a servant of Christ.

So this sophomore who wrote the editorial is a lot like I was once, and I empathize with him. He went searching for the bread of life and was handed a stone rock: an inflexible, infallible, we're right and they're going to hell religion. Wonder what he's repressing?

Pardon me as I break into song, but Jesus shines purer, Jesus shines brighter than all the dogma men can boast. That is how I experience my faith now. :)

[kara speltz]

When I left Covenant, "pagan" was the one-size-fits all pejorative label. It was defined essentially as pantheism and was likened to the Canaanites who had sexual orgies and that's why God had them all slain, men women and children, and the chosen people took their land.

Unitarianism never came up, but in their view, monolithic church history went like this: After the acension of Christ, the Holy Spirit stopped working miracles, so the Pentecostals were WRONG. After the canon was closed in 325 CE, the Bible was perfect and it's never changed since. Anyone who denied the doctrine of the trinity (exactly as formulated in the Nicene Creed) could not be a christian. In fact all the people at the hundreds of other councils that were held to discuss these issues weren't really christians because they had "mixed" paganism with scripture and were WRONG.

It would be years before I could sort out the lunacy of this sectarian view and appreciate that theological diversity exists in the Bible and in the early church. It was especially liberating to realize that Earth-based religions existed before any other, and that ALL religions owe their substance to some extent to a respect for the Earth and indigenous paganism/pantheism, so rather than demonize them, we should seek to learn from them.
Most importantly, it was liberating to give up the belief that I was right and all the others were wrong, and to build a spiritual life based not in being absolutely right but in being a servant of Christ.

So this sophomore who wrote the editorial is a lot like I was once, and I empathize with him. He went searching for the bread of life and was handed a stone rock: an inflexible, infallible, we're right and they're going to hell religion. Wonder what he's repressing?

Pardon me as I break into song, but Jesus shines purer, Jesus shines brighter than all the dogma men can boast. That is how I experience my faith now. :)

TJ, beautifully put. I wish christians could get over their fear and their need to be the only way. It has been interesting to me as I return to my Catholic roots, all the other spiritual paths that I explored, aren't contradictory, but interweave with my christianity, to make a beautiful tapestry - christian, huna, buddhist, pagan, yoruban, all mixed in with a bit of "new age," makes for a very rich tapestry.

kara

[Emproph]

an inflexible, infallible, we're right and they're going to hell religion. Wonder what he's repressing?I wish christians could get over their fear and their need to be the only way.

It seems that the understanding is that the only way to get over the fear of death is to embrace a misplaced fear of God (eternal hell).

Perfectly fearful and brilliantly ironic, but illogical to the core (if God is Love ;)).
--
How better to foster the idea of eternal consequence(s) without the "loving" God of HELL?

[antonyh]

Pardon me as I break into song, but Jesus shines purer, Jesus shines brighter than all the dogma men can boast. That is how I experience my faith now. :)

I love this :good:

Let's turn it into a hymn.

[revtj]

I wish christians could get over their fear and their need to be the only way.

Well I have to admit that inflexible religious beliefs and the sadistic God of Calvin kept me out of a lot of trouble when I was a teenager. But we all have to grow up.

I think of the passage in Corinthians 13 where the epistle writer says, "when I was a child I spoke and thought as a child, when I became an adult, I began to see things as an adult." (TJV)

James Fowler's work on the stages of faith (http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm)really convinced me in seminary that the church mostly does not exist to help people grow up spiritually, but to keep them as babes in the faith, dependent on the institution, and afraid to venture out. It is so much more secure in the mythic literal! So simple! No need to think, just trust and obey...

I sensed that same security in the editorial. He has a pejorative label for any and everything that could make him stop and think. So he writes to retain the blessing of this community and they will bless him so long as he doesn't step outside the bubble. There's a lot of safety in that if there's hormones raging and who knows what else repressed by concrete religious assumptions & labels.

[Daniel]

I sensed that same security in the editorial. He has a pejorative label for any and everything that could make him stop and think. So he writes to retain the blessing of this community and they will bless him so long as he doesn't step outside the bubble. There's a lot of safety in that if there's hormones raging and who knows what else repressed by concrete religious assumptions & labels.

Revtj- your last couple of posts have filled me with joy. I so agree with your experience and journey.

What you say above is so true: I saw- with my own eyes- what happened to those who asked too many questions while I was at Evangel. One professor got the boot for just this this kind of thing. It's the party line all the way. Everything becomes about maintaining the status quote, and anything that threatens it is pushed away. Religion- if I can put it this way- becomes a defense against God rather than a means towards Him.

[revtj]

Everything becomes about maintaining the status quote, and anything that threatens it is pushed away. Religion- if I can put it this way- becomes a defense against God rather than a means towards Him.

This is so true, and I think it's exploitive even if the people involved volunteer as I did...I didn't feel exploited at the time, and yet what I found later was that I had been taught an intricate system of conditional love in which all paths had to lead back to their denomination and doctrine.

To this day the unconditional love of God is hard for me to be certain of, because when I needed to know it most, as an adolescent, I got dogma & doctrine that made "us" right and "them" wrong. They get so defensive when I point this out (or when I was pointing it out on the alum blog), but it's cultish not Christlike to turn God into a weapon...

Thanks, Daniel, our experiences must have been very similar! :rainbow: