Wheaton's Response

[antonyh]

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/booklets/StanJonesResponsetoMelWhite.pdf

Have any of you read Wheaton College's response to the Equality Ride and to Mel White's What The Bible Says and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality. I plan to read it over the next month as a way to sharpen my understanding of the Biblical/theological issues. Any discussion of the document would be interesting.

Maybe we could focus on the author and the Introduction this week.

In particular, what distinctive bias does Stan Jones bring to the subject as revealed in the Introduction? What bias does Mel White bring to the subject? Which bias has more legitimacy and why? How is Soulforce addressing Evangelical interpretive bias in it's activism?

On a scale of belief about the Bible where "inerrancy" is on one end of the scale and the Bible is "just a human book" is on the other end of the scale, where is Stanton Jones and where is Mel White? Where are we?

[andrewlittle]

But, I'll commit to reading it also.

Andy

[keltic63]

brief discussion here: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1293

[u-dog]

But, I'll commit to reading it also.

Andy

I will too. But only in the company of others! the potential for a major depressive episode is too great otherwise.

[andrewlittle]

I will too. But only in the company of others! the potential for a major depressive episode is too great otherwise.

And maybe we should collectively get together periodically for decompression.

[BrentRichards]

I've done some preliminary work on it ... in the context of Cedarville's presentations. They cite the Wheaton work extensively. It's pretty much the usual, from what I've seen.

[tpdncr4christ]

it's not some smarty farty paper is it? will I be able to comprehend it? cause I'd like to check it out...

[keltic63]

it's not some smarty farty paper is it? will I be able to comprehend it? cause I'd like to check it out...

we can help you with the big words :D

[BrentRichards]

we can help you with the big words :D

There are BIG words? I'm out of this one.

[Daniel]

we can help you with the big words :D

I read it this morning. Believe me, there aren't any big words.

What stood out to me, more than anything, is the way in which the argument is contextualized. (Now there's a big word!) The author spends precious little time in looking at his own worldview- and as such- the work is infused with 'love the sinner and hate the sin' thinking.

Oh....and Mel White is a heretic.

I look forward to the analysis by the big guns among us. That is, those with the bible firmly under their belt.

[u-dog]

I read it this morning. Believe me, there aren't any big words.

Oh....and Mel White is a heretic.



DANG !!! I WONDERED about that! Shoot.

[antonyh]

Maybe we could focus on the author and the Introduction this week.

In particular, what distinctive bias does Stan Jones bring to the subject as revealed in the Introduction? What bias does Mel White bring to the subject? Which bias has more legitimacy and why? How is Soulforce addressing Evangelical interpretive bias in it's activism?

On a scale of belief about the Bible where "inerrancy" is on one end of the scale and the Bible is "just a human book" is on the other end of the scale, where is Stanton Jones and where is Mel White? Where are we?

[andrewlittle]

Maybe we could focus on the author and the Introduction this week.

In particular, what distinctive bias does Stan Jones bring to the subject as revealed in the Introduction? What bias does Mel White bring to the subject? Which bias has more legitimacy and why? How is Soulforce addressing Evangelical interpretive bias in it's activism?

On a scale of belief about the Bible where "inerrancy" is on one end of the scale and the Bible is "just a human book" is on the other end of the scale, where is Stanton Jones and where is Mel White? Where are we?

Good questions - good idea. Tomorrow, then, I'll post my views (then you can all reprimand me for being intolerant). Oh - come on, pleeeease.

[u-dog]

us to use scourges and sharp sticks? not really my thing but... whatever helps you.

[keltic63]

us to use scourges and sharp sticks? not really my thing but... whatever helps you.

how about we tie him up? can we do that? huh? can we? please?

[andrewlittle]

This is beginning to sound like just too much fun. Can we do it even if I'm not intolerant? We could just pretend I'm a bad boy.

Although, keltic, you sound just a tad too eager.

[antonyh]

Good questions - good idea. Tomorrow, then, I'll post my views (then you can all reprimand me for being intolerant). Oh - come on, pleeeease.

I'll think about my answers and post them tomorrow as well.

[u-dog]

This is beginning to sound like just too much fun. Can we do it even if I'm not intolerant? We could just pretend I'm a bad boy.

Although, keltic, you sound just a tad too eager.


Oh brother! :rolleyes:

[antonyh]

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/booklets/StanJonesResponsetoMelWhite.pdf

Maybe we could focus on the author and the Introduction this week.

In particular, what distinctive bias does Stan Jones bring to the subject as revealed in the Introduction? What bias does Mel White bring to the subject? Which bias has more legitimacy and why? How is Soulforce addressing Evangelical interpretive bias in it's activism?

On a scale of belief about the Bible where "inerrancy" is on one end of the scale and the Bible is "just a human book" is on the other end of the scale, where is Stanton Jones and where is Mel White? Where are we?

Stanton Jones' professional training is in Psychology. He served a three year term (1999-2001) on the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association. He published a book titled, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate (InterVarsity). I was curious about the positions he takes in this book as a background to the pamphlet he wrote about Soulforce and Mel White.

Here is my quick summary:D :

He is not sure if homosexuality is a psychopathology, but he is convinced it is a sin. Unlike many Evangelical Christians, he believes that it is unlikely that a homosexual can change their sexual orientation. He would call LGBTQ people to celibacy I guess.


Is homosexuality a psychopathology?

He is not sure if it is a pathology, but certain it is a sin:

"Jones and Yarhouse ask the question, "Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology?" as the title of one of their chapters. Their position evidences an internal conflict between their two worldviews of science and Evangelical theology. They state (a) that there is no necessary overlap between sinfulness and status as psychopathology and (b) that homosexuality may not be pathology as mental health professions understand pathology. However, they go on to state that homosexuality is sinful and that "same-sex attraction … does not appear to be what God wants for people" (p. 114). This religious belief seems to strongly bias their discussion of the normal/pathological question: "The origins of homosexuality are unclear but grounded ultimately in our human fallenness and rebellion against God." (p. 179).

Source:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse.htm

He believes the removal of homosexuality as a pathology from the DSM was based on political pressure, not scientific findings:

"Using the example of the 1973 action by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the authors assert that mental health organizations’ affirmations about the good mental health of homosexuals may not rest on scientific findings, but on external political and social pressure (p. 97-98). However, they fail to report the positions by various other professional organizations negating the view that homosexuality is pathological: American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association; American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, American School Counselor Association, et al (see below for references).

Source:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse.htm

Detailed critique:
http://www.johnnyskeptic75.com/#2._Is_homosexuality_a_psychopathology_

Can homosexuality be changed?

“We do not share the optimistic and seemingly universal generalization of some conservative Christians who seem to imply that anyone with motivation can change, if change is taken to mean complete alteration of sexual orientation to replace homosexual with heterosexual erotic orientation. Even the most optimistic empirically grounded spokespersons for change by psychological means say that change is most likely when motivation is strong, when there is a history of successful heterosexual functioning, when gender identity issues are not present, and when involvement in actual homosexual practice has been minimal. Change of homosexual orientation may well be impossible for some by any natural means. Yet the position that homosexuality is unchangeable seems questionable in light or reports of successful change.”

Source:
http://www.johnnyskeptic75.com/#9._Can_homosexuality_be_changed

Is he biased in his approach toward the psychological research?

"However, the bias of the authors is clearly visible in the studies they choose to discuss and the sometimes incomplete presentation of data and conclusions from those studies."

Source:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse.htm

[u-dog]

He would call LGBTQ people to celibacy I guess.
As if it were HE who called anyone to anything! God might call particular gay people to celibacy for a season or he might not.

[BrianB]

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/booklets/StanJonesResponsetoMelWhite.pdf

Have any of you read Wheaton College's response to the Equality Ride and to Mel White's What The Bible Says and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality. I plan to read it over the next month as a way to sharpen my understanding of the Biblical/theological issues. Any discussion of the document would be interesting.

Maybe we could focus on the author and the Introduction this week.

In particular, what distinctive bias does Stan Jones bring to the subject as revealed in the Introduction? What bias does Mel White bring to the subject? Which bias has more legitimacy and why? How is Soulforce addressing Evangelical interpretive bias in it's activism?

On a scale of belief about the Bible where "inerrancy" is on one end of the scale and the Bible is "just a human book" is on the other end of the scale, where is Stanton Jones and where is Mel White? Where are we?

I scanned through the first several pages. It was annoying how many times Dr. Jones misquoted Dr. White. The things he pulled out of Dr. White's work were barely recognizable.

Another peeve about Wheaton's reponse is that we are asked to use as a context nearly everything that has been written about christianity and homosexuality so as to lessen our particular bias. Dr. Jone's bias is quite apparent. It made me sick and mad.

[Daniel]

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tidh/jones_yarhouse.htm

Anthony- thanks for the info and links. Very telling stuff, I must say. The review by Townsely also notes Jones and Yarhouse maintain the following.

..the church’s judgment about the sinfulness of homosexuality should be made on the foundation of exegesis, not science.

That's quite a statement.

Blacks, at one time, where thought to be inferior human beings based on scripture, and science, among other things, has shown the fallacy of that kind of thinking. As well, the Catholic church persecuted Galileo and others positing that the sun did not revolve the earth.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_astronomy.html

Scientists had to suffer torture, silencing, imprisonment and death at the hands of Christians who didn't agree with newly discovered facts about the world. Christianity lost the first battle with astronomers who realized that, contrary to what Christians asserted, the Sun did not orbit the Earth, and that the Universe doesn't seem to be designed specifically for humankind. Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo (1564-1642), Newton (1643-1727) and Laplace (1749-1827) all fought battles against the Church when they published scientific papers challenging religious orthodoxy. Bible verses were all the theories Christians needed; and Joshua 10:12-13, 2 Kings 20:11, Isaiah 38:8 and Isaiah 30:26 all contradicted astronomers. But through intelligence and clever politics, truth gradually won out over dogma, and the Church retreated... only to go on to fight similar ignorant battles, and violently impose dogmatic errors, in the arenas of physics, biology and philosophy.

I'm afraid the Jones and others will never- or at least willingly- accept scientific evidence, in the form of peer review studies in human sexuality, biological date, or the self-reporting of gay christians. He, and others like him, are literalists.

But do you know what stikes me as odd?

Jones can't, or doesn't seem to appreciate, though he is a trained pychologist, the nature and reality of 'projection'. His own that is.

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one project their attributes to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.

~

To understand the process, imagine an individual (Alice, for example) who feels dislike for another person (let's say Bob), but whose unconscious mind will not allow her to become aware of this negative emotion. Instead of admitting to herself that she feels dislike for Bob, she projects her dislike onto her friend, Sally, or to Bob himself, so that her conscious thought is not "I don't like Bob," but "Sally does not like Bob" or "Bob doesn't like me." In this way one can see that projection is related to denial, the only defense mechanism, some argue, that is more primitive than projection. Alice has denied a part of herself that is desperate to come to the surface. She can't flatly admit that she doesn't like Bob, so instead she will project the dislike, thinking Sally does not like Bob, or Bob doesn't like.

In this case, Jones and others use the bible as a means of projecting their animus. Instead of saying "I don't like homosexuals" or "I fear homosexuals' or 'Homosexuals make me uncomfortable', they keep their projection intact by saying to themselves: "The bible doesn't like homosexuals, therefore, so can I." But since that's not a very nice face to show to the world, they pretty it up by calling it 'Love the sinner and hate the sin- which is a process that entails denial and dissociation.

Dissociation is a state of acute mental decompensation in which certain thoughts, emotions, sensations, and/or memories are compartmentalized because they are too overwhelming for the conscious mind to integrate. This subconscious strategy for managing powerful negative emotions is sometimes referred to as "splitting", as these thoughts, emotions, sensations, and/or memories are "split off" from the integrated ego.

That's my armchair analysis. ;)

[antonyh]

..the church’s judgment about the sinfulness of homosexuality should be made on the foundation of exegesis, not science.


That's quite a statement.

Blacks, at one time, where thought to be inferior human beings based on scripture, and science, among other things, has shown the fallacy of that kind of thinking. As well, the Catholic church persecuted Galileo and others positing that the sun did not revolve the earth.
That's quite a statement.


It is a remarkable belief. It goes to show that Wheaton operates with pre-Enlightenment thinking. Here is a highly trained psychologist that even sat on a prestigious APA board that would rather defer to ancient texts than to science.

Remember my entry when I first joined Soulforce:

When I attended Central Bible College and Covenant Theological Seminary, I was essentially studying in schools with pre-Enlightenment thinking. It was like being sent back in a time machine to the Protestant Reformation. Being gay pushed me to consider the Enlightenment seriously. To quote from biologist Edward O Wilson's book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge:


Bacon questioned the solidity of classical 'delicate' learning, those medieval forms based on ancient texts...calling for a study of nature and the human condition on their own terms, without artifice. Drawing on his extraordinary insights into mental processes, he observed that because 'the mind, hastily and without choice, imbibes and treasures up the first notices of things, from whence all the rest proceed, errors must forever prevail, and remain uncorrected.' Thus knowledge is not well constructed but 'resembles a magnificent structure that has no foundation.' (pg. 25).


The Bible is the product of the human mind, a human response to God. I think that Bacon is right that the mind is an unreliable instrument and will result in errors that prevail forever. The enlightenment proposed a new way of gaining knowledge, the scientific method. Instead of building your view of the universe deductively from ancient texts, you build it inductively through the study of nature and the human condition on it's own terms.


I thought it was interesting that later in the piece, Stanton Jones says, "His analysis is that the growing acceptance of 'sexual minorities' in many churches is based not on some minor adjustments of moral standards, but rather on a radical shift in theological foundations" (10).

He was talking about Episcopalians. Can you imagine the kind of theological shift the Enlightenment would require!

[Emproph]

I went through his response to Mel’s book just before the Equality Ride began. Dobson via his CitizenLink email (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=20647&postcount=79) gave a list of materials that the college kids and administrators should familiarize themselves with in order to refute the “emotional” testimony or anything else the ER’s had to say. Stan Jones’ pamphlet and book were on the list.

I tried to dissect his “response” to Mel’s booklet, but I couldn’t grasp a hold of it. It was like there was no rhyme or reasoning to it – the illogic itself wasn’t consistent. I finally realized that he basically cherry-picked Mel’s booklet and then cherry-picked his response, and then called it a refutation of the whole thing.

His approach is different though. I don’t know whether to say he’s too stupid for his own intelligence, or too intelligent for his own stupidity. I’m also not sure if it matters. Basically he, unlike most anti-gay activists, makes the attempt to self-reflect in his analysis of homosexuality in order to convince himself he’s taking his own bias into consideration. The problem is that this ‘self analysis,’ or attempt at an objective perspective is limited to the conclusion that they are already determined to make. His book and articles reflect this.

This is how I referred to it in another post:
...Yup, that's Paulian logic for ya, I'd recognize it anywhere.

Obviously this guy's definition of "orientation" was the same as "lifestyle" from the start. It seems that in order to avoid awareness of this he's convinced himself that by using the word "orientation" he's now thinking in terms of orientation. Thereby allowing him to think of himself as being fair and balanced in his scriptural assessment of the morality of homosexuality, while guaranteeing the conclusion that homosexuality is morally, and therefore objectively sinful.

So bravo Thomas E. Schmidt for taking that extra step to remain ignorant of your own bigotry. :applause:

Extra mile, duly noted.
~God

That guy used the word orientation to describe the meaning of lifestyle in order to pretend to compare the two.

Jones uses the word immorality to describe homosexuality, and then pretends not-to-have-to compare the two.

From his book: Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate (http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Scientific-Research-Churchs-Debate/dp/0830815678/ref=sr_1_1/002-1828138-2026426?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178010863&sr=8-1). (Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse © 2000)

They open with Matthew Shepard:

(Italic emphasis was in the book, bold and underline mine)
But who is at fault for this sinful treatment of Matthew Shepard? Many would like to use the tragedy opportunistically to convince us that it is the historic Christian judgement that homosexual behavior is immoral that is ultimately at fault in a case like this; that it is the judgement of the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians that is at fault. You remember his words, of course:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. (1 Cor 6:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206:9-10&version=31), emphasis added)

Critics want to argue that such a moral judgement is bigotry and must be wrong because it is the source of attacks upon and rejection of gay and lesbian persons...

Offenders of whom I would ask, and he never clarifies, thus the basis for his idea of morality, but only when it comes to we gays. We’ll get back to that quote, but on the next page they say:

We believe in being clear about our assumptions and presuppositions, so we confess that we are defending the historic understanding of the church, grounded in the Bible’s teaching, that homosexual behavior is immoral....

...Science has nothing to offer that would even remotely constitute persuasive evidence that would compel us to deviate from the historic Christian judgement that full homosexual intimacy, homosexual behavior, is immoral.

It's right because it's always been that way, and therefore it will never change (except for the times it hasn't always been that way and has changed). :rolleyes: x 20.

Yet incredulously, two pages later they state:

We are critical realists... This view establishes the possibility of true dialogue between science and religion (as when Galileo changed our view of the physical universe and hence how we understand certain passages of Scripture) and religion influencing what we believe about empirical reality (as when our Christian beliefs lead us to view certain aspects of what it means to be human differently than the non-Christian).

First of all, just to get it out of the way, I have yet to find a statement by Stan Jones (and I've Googled to death trying), condemning remarriage as adultery. He has however stated that there are certain things that we just can't know about the Bible (in regard to the levitical laws, etc). That part is even in his pamphlet, though I believe it may be a footnote. It's an admission of "I don't know." Conveniently missing from the additional examples he offers is the adultery of remarriage.

Which brings us back to the his contention of the Bibles 'clear-cut stance against homosexuality,' an additional hypocrisy. That's supposedly clear-cut, yet other things are not, yet we can be sure that the Bible is completely inerrant. In other words, even though we don't know that the whole Bible is true, we can be sure that the whole Bible is true :rolleyes:. To be fair though, at least he takes the time to consider his ignorance and admit it.

But like I was saying about the self subterfuge of wordplay. He frames the issue as though we are taking an anti-moral stance by repeatedly calling homosexuality immoral, without ever describing what morality is.

Furthermore, by doing so he obfuscates the real stand we are taking, which is against the immorality of hypocrisy! Specifically the hypocrisy of cherry-picking the Bible to "prove" only that which one desires to be true - when it comes to HARMING OTHERS!

He just does it in a round-a-bout way to convince himself, specifically, that he's not doing it. He's a brilliant idiot.

[Emproph]

I had this written down, I think it's from his "response."

Is chastity for singles cruel or impossible?

Celibacy—that is, voluntary restraint from intimate sexual expression—while not the creational norm for adults, is nevertheless approved in words by the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7) and by example in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. This teaching and example ought to caution Christians about accepting any view that elevates sexual intimacy to a basic necessity of full humanness or denies the possibility of a meaningful celibate existence, especially where the latter is formed and carried out in the context of a Christian community that equally and fully values the gifts of all its members. Celibacy may be hard, but it is neither cruel nor impossible

"Voluntary restraint from intimate sexual expression" – as exampled by Jesus Christ himself no less – is used to make the argument that sexual intimacy should not be considered a human necessity for homosexuals and should be considered a viable solution. And then makes the outrageous assertion that demanding lifelong celibacy of homosexual persons “may be hard, but it is neither cruel nor impossible.”

Now THAT takes the cake. We, "the least of these," so delusional and confused that we don't even know we are supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex, are being held to the sexual standard of Jesus Christ himself.

And Stanton Jones wants us to think he knows better? Better? I thought it was our sinful desire to have perverted promiscuous sex in and of itself that made us homosexual to begin with?!!

[Daniel]

Of course, I just love trotting out this line. Oscar at his best. It's from his play Lady Windemere's Fan. Saw it in London on my honeymoon. But I digress.

Emproph- I jotted down the instances where he refers to morality in the text under discussion.


p. 6
The question of the moral status of homosexual acts is tearing the Christian church apart in Western society.

p. 6
This document, however, is not your best general introduction to the difficult topic of the moral status of homosexual conduct and the persons who engage in it.

p. 7
... Jesus spoke on the centrality of our submission to God in deciding matters of morality when he stated..

p. 10
We also recognize that some have left our community and embraced other views of sexual morality; we respect their right to disagree with us but respectfully disagree with their choices...

p. 10
We recognize and grieve over violence and injustices perpetrated against persons because of their sexual orientation; we repudiate all such violence and injustice even while we affirm the continuing validity of our faith’s moral teachings and deny any causal connection between those teachings and such violence and injustice.

p. 14
homosexual conduct is always judged immoral

Granted, I've only taken notes up to page 16, but the message seems clear: 'I have the right to judge'. ;)

And btw- I believe the instance on page 10 where Jones refers to 'sexual orientation' is the only time he does so in the document. Most of time he refers to conduct or behavior.

[Emproph]

This one's my favorite...
We recognize and grieve over violence and injustices perpetrated against persons because of their sexual orientation;

we repudiate all such violence and injustice even while we affirm the continuing validity of our faith’s moral teachings and deny any causal connection between those teachings and such violence and injustice.

[Daniel]

As a man beats his child.....

"Believe me, this is hurting me more than it's hurting you."

[u-dog]

I had this written down, I think it's from his "response."

"Voluntary restraint from intimate sexual expression" – as exampled by Jesus Christ himself no less – is used to make the argument that sexual intimacy should not be considered a human necessity for homosexuals and should be considered a viable solution. And then makes the outrageous assertion that demanding lifelong celibacy of homosexual persons “may be hard, but it is neither cruel nor impossible.”



As a Pearsbatidrian I always ask people to review what Calvin says about Celibacy in his "INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION". (Book II, Chapter VIII, #42 -- if you are going to look it up BRENT). He is arguing against the Roman Catholic practice of a celibate priesthood. He argues that celibacy IS NOT a lifestyle choice but rather a "Charism" a spiritual gift, given to some by the Holy Spirit but not to others. He further argues that it never given for a lifetime but rather for a season. He recommends, for instance, that husbands and wives might practice celibacy in their marriage in much the same way the Christians fast. Do it for a short period as a spiritual discipline but then return to a normal marital exercise of sexuality.

Paul suggests that if he had his way, no Christians would marry and all would be celibate as he is, but that he understands that not everyone is so gifted and that it is better to "marry than to burn" -- presumably to "burn with Passion" rather than "to burn in Hell".

I can SEE if it were Roman Catholics making the celibacy argument, but Protestants? It makes no sense. It is not consistant with our understanding of human sexuality.


Here is the Text from the Institutes:

42. Now, since natural feeling and the passions unnamed by the fall make the marriage tie doubly necessary, save in the case of those whom God has by special grace exempted, let every individual consider how the case stands with himself. Virginity, I admit, is a virtue not to be despised; but since it is denied to some, and to others granted only for a season, those who are assailed by incontinence, and unable successfully to war against it, should retake themselves to the remedy of marriage, and thus cultivate chastity in the way of their calling.

Those incapable of self-restraint, if they apply not to the remedy allowed and provided for intemperance, war with God and resist his ordinance.

And let no man tell me (as many in the present day do) that he can do all things, God helping! The help of God is present with those only who walk in his ways (Ps. 91:14), that is, in his callings from which all withdraw themselves who, omitting the remedies provided by God, vainly and presumptuously strive to struggle with and surmount their natural feelings.

That continence is a special gift from God, and of the class of those which are not bestowed indiscriminately on the whole body of the Church, but only on a few of its members, our Lord affirms (Mt. 19:12). He first describes a certain class of individuals who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavenly sake; that is, in order that they may be able to devote themselves with more liberty and less restraint to the things of heaven. But lest any one should suppose that such a sacrifice was in every man’s power, he had shown a little before that all are not capable, but those only to whom it is specially given from above. Hence he concludes, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Paul asserts the same thing still more plainly when he says, “Every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that,” (1 Cor. 7:7).

I know that Wheaton is evangelical, but isn't it a Calvinist institution? Maybe I'm wrong.

John Calvin says it, I believe it, that settles it!

[u-dog]

THis is unlikely to be of interest to anyone but Brent and Andy but here is a link to an interactive online copy of the INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.ii.ix.html

[BrentRichards]

Celibacy—that is, voluntary restraint from intimate sexual expression

Voluntary - that is, unless you're gay, in which case it's mandatory...

I absolutely embrace the idea of celibacy as charism ... if Calvin hadn't said it I would have (grandiose delusions ... medication adjustment time). What to see what a charism of celibacy looks like for a homosexual ... check out the Society of Saint John the Evangelist (www.ssje.org) or the Society of Saint Francis (www.s-s-f.org). Several of the brothers are gay, and freely embrace celibacy not because they believe gay is immoral (the communities both host retreats for gay individuals and couples), but because they believe they personally are called to celibacy AS A PERSON, not because they're gay. One of the gay brothers at SSF was in "Saint of 911" ... the documentary about Father Mychal Judge, if you've seen it. (If you haven't, do.)

"I had the gift of celibacy, but I gave it back." Mark Lowry

[davidb]

Wheaton is NOT a Calvanist Institution. I'm swamped at work but want to join back in the fray soon. Hopefully I'll be able to.

[Emproph]

I can SEE if it were Roman Catholics making the celibacy argument, but Protestants?

Remember that the next time you hear from a ‘Christian’ organization that “all the major religions are against homosexuality.”

It’s amazing how easily hatreds are set aside when it comes to hatred..

[antonyh]

John Calvin says it, I believe it, that settles it!


Small confession...I really like Calvin's Institutes.

You can take a Seminary course in the Institutes for free at Covenant Theological Seminary along with reading it for free on the Web:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH523/CH523.asp

[antonyh]

"Voluntary restraint from intimate sexual expression" – as exampled by Jesus Christ himself no less – is used to make the argument that sexual intimacy should not be considered a human necessity for homosexuals and should be considered a viable solution. And then makes the outrageous assertion that demanding lifelong celibacy of homosexual persons “may be hard, but it is neither cruel nor impossible.”


I also feel that reducing the issue to "intimate sexual expression" severs the LGBT person from the full meaning and reality of intimate sexual expression in the context of a committed relationship.

I love Genesis 2:18, "...It is not good that the man should be alone..." In v. 24 the man is to "cling" to his partner. Requiring that people be celibate cuts them off from the possibility of committed companionship, the kind of companionship a partner provides.

Verse 2:18 ends, "...I will make him a helper as his partner." Requiring that people be celibate not only cuts them off from committed companionship, but also the help offered in a partnership. A partner can help you survive financially through difficult economic times and can take care of you when you are sick. "In sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer".

For Stanton Jones to claim that requiring celibacy for all LGBT is neither cruel nor impossible is just flat out wrong. The only way he can do that is by reducing everything to sex. We're just sex machines, not sexual beings.

[ladyinred]

Anything that comes from love in my mind cannot be considered a pathology. Perhaps the bible sums it up by saying,"love does no harm to a neighbor."

[ladyinred]

"while not the creational norm for adults, is nevertheless approved in words by the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7) "
Ok, do heterosexuals only have sex for procreation purposes or for other reasons such as a form of intimacy? If they are saying that sexual morality is based solely on the ideal of procreation, it would seem to me that having sex just for personal reasons other than having children would also be considered a sin.Am I missing somthing here. Perhaps heterosexuals should have to live a life of celibacy then, if their sexual behavior falls out of line with the so-called mandate to have sex for purely the reason of begetting offspring,then. I for one think that would be a hard line to tow and doubt if you could get heterosexuals to conform to that. If they can't live up to that standard ,why do they expect others to?

[Emproph]

Am I missing somthing here. Perhaps heterosexuals should have to live a life of celibacy then, if their sexual behavior falls out of line with the so-called mandate to have sex for purely the reason of begetting offspring,then.

I for one think that would be a hard line to tow and doubt if you could get heterosexuals to conform to that. If they can't live up to that standard, why do they expect others to?

We have to give the guy credit though. Most anti-gay activists like him don't have the courage to even suggest life-long celibacy as a "solution."

~~
Gimme a 'C'!

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j57/coolandeasy/Bi_Girl_Cheerleaders.gif

Gimme an 'elibacy'...
~~

[u-dog]

Small confession...I really like Calvin's Institutes.

You can take a Seminary course in the Institutes for free at Covenant Theological Seminary along with reading it for free on the Web:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH523/CH523.asp

In Seminary my class on the Institutes of the Christian Religion was taught by a gay Methodist.

[Dash]

Celibacy may be hard, but it is neither cruel nor impossible

But...we're not deceived...those who oppose us would not be appeased if we were in celibate, loving gay relationships. We'd still be plainly gay, and it is what we are that offends.

[BrianB]

But...we're not deceived...those who oppose us would not be appeased if we were in celibate, loving gay relationships. We'd still be plainly gay, and it is what we are that offends.

Here it is in latin for us Catholic traditionalists: EGO sum proinde EGO ledo. Isn't the internet wonderful.:cool: I was just kidding about being a traditionalist but I am catholic.

[tdogg]

Wow Patrick - cool cheerleaders!!!

Can anyone explain what a 'marriage' consists of according to the Bible? I mean, how would one define the actual act of getting marriage? I couldn't possibly be more 'married' to my partner, it's what I feel in my heart irregardless of existence or lack of paperwork or another human's blessing. Isnt' the love in my heart and the blessings bestowed upon us by God enough to justify us being married? So, in that case, wouldn't God expect us to have sex?

Unless sexual acts are strictly for procreation...But are they? Have you ever seen animals engage in sex (homo or hetero) outside of the 'breeding pen'? I've seen castrated horses jump and mount mares and other male horses and engage in sex (yes the full on sex folks) with no hope of procreation. I've seen animals engage in homosexual sex (very many different species) again, no hope of procreation.

A good point is brought up - if 'married' humans are engaging in sexual acts without the intent or hope of procreation, is that not wrong (based on the theory that the Bible teaches sex is for procreation therefore justifying in some minds their belief that we should only engage in sex with a married person - to us of course - of the opposite sex)?

Who defines the act of marriage - does God actually provide for us a play by play set of instructions on how to get married, or does a human(s) once again give themselves the authority on determining how that happens and who is allowed the priviledge of taking part in their instructions?

[tdogg]

Amen Antony! :applause: It's the heart that matters!

[u-dog]

OK, I have, for obvious reasons, given this whole marriage thing a LOT of thought so here goes:

1. I want there to be NO misunderstanding about this: IMO, GLBT people who commit themselves to one another and their relationship to God ARE married in the fullest sense of the words regardless of what the state may say. regardless of what anyone may say.

2. While mutual love is ESSENTIAL, it is not the only thing in play in Marriage. IN marriage, two people COMMIT to each other that they will strive to create, sustain, and RE-create the relationship over and over again EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT FEELING mutual love. Believe me when I tell you that if "LOVE AS A FEELING" were the only thing holding me and my wife together we woulda both been outa here long since. When we marry we join our two selves togehter to create a THIRD entity which didn't exist before. Before there was ME and YOU. Now there is ME, YOU, and US. In this sense ALL marriages are PROCREATIVE even infertile Straight couples and GLBT couples.

3. Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not JUST about the two people. Marriages exist in the context of wider family and larger community. My wife didn't just become my wife. She became the daughter of my parents and Sister of my Siblings and the Aunt of my Sibling's children. I help to care for my Mother-in-law with Alzheimers because when I married my wife she became MY mother. So ALL kinds of relationships are shattered and re-created when two people marry. My friends and her friends become OUR friends or they eventually become NO FRIENDS at all. That's why a ceremony is important. Because everyone who will be impacted by the marriage needs to buy into its creation and agree to the new ground rules. That's why Marriage MUST be recognized (eventually) by the state so that the state can recognize the new relationship as a separate entity and deal with it in all of the appropriate ways.

4. Love initiates and nurtures a marriage, but commitment, intention, community, family, friends, the law, and above all the LOVE OF GOD, sustain it.

[Dash]

Gay Marriage

...you and me...
bound together by
presidents scapegoating to victory,
senators amending constitutions,
judges abdicating on minority rights,
pastors indoctrinating holy rollers,
holy rollers voting in presidents, senators and judges,
bashers vying for the top of the FBI hate-crime list.

what could rings and vows add to
the depth of our love
on indignity's road?

Love it!:dove: :applause: :cookie: :award: :flower:

[tdogg]

OK, I have, for obvious reasons, given this whole marriage thing a LOT of thought so here goes:

1. I want there to be NO misunderstanding about this: IMO, GLBT people who commit themselves to one another and their relationship to God ARE married in the fullest sense of the words regardless of what the state may say. regardless of what anyone may say.

2. While mutual love is ESSENTIAL, it is not the only thing in play in Marriage. IN marriage, two people COMMIT to each other that they will strive to create, sustain, and RE-create the relationship over and over again EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT FEELING mutual love. Believe me when I tell you that if "LOVE AS A FEELING" were the only thing holding me and my wife together we woulda both been outa here long since. When we marry we join our two selves togehter to create a THIRD entity which didn't exist before. Before there was ME and YOU. Now there is ME, YOU, and US. In this sense ALL marriages are PROCREATIVE even infertile Straight couples and GLBT couples.

3. Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not JUST about the two people. Marriages exist in the context of wider family and larger community. My wife didn't just become my wife. She became the daughter of my parents and Sister of my Siblings and the Aunt of my Sibling's children. I help to care for my Mother-in-law with Alzheimers because when I married my wife she became MY mother. So ALL kinds of relationships are shattered and re-created when two people marry. My friends and her friends become OUR friends or they eventually become NO FRIENDS at all. That's why a ceremony is important. Because everyone who will be impacted by the marriage needs to buy into its creation and agree to the new ground rules. That's why Marriage MUST be recognized (eventually) by the state so that the state can recognize the new relationship as a separate entity and deal with it in all of the appropriate ways.

4. Love initiates and nurtures a marriage, but commitment, intention, community, family, friends, the law, and above all the LOVE OF GOD, sustain it.

U-dog, Excellent!

Dash, whew you cut your hair...NICE!

[u-dog]

Even if I could find a church to marry me, many family members and friends would not come to the ceremony. They would consider the suggestion about "buying into its creation" as tantamount to heresy, the end of faith as they know it. For many LGBTQ persons a ceremony with the community impact you are talking about is simply impossible.

I am not debunking what you are saying because I think it has broad implications on how LGBTQ feel about themselves. I know many LGBTQ people who find it very difficult to even aspire to a committed relationship because they don't see how it will fit into their extended community of family and friends. They just don't want to deal with the pain of being the "elephant in the room" in their extended community. It is much easier for them to live their lives in compartments: my family, my gay friends and my sex partners. Keep each compartment separate so that I can feel safe in each one. Of course this is not a whole, integrated way to live...but it helps people to survive.
The Religious Right often accuse the LGBTQ community of being disease ridden and promiscuous. Stanton Jones has a whole chapters on Promiscuity among Homosexuals and AIDS. As your discussion has highlighted, it is the lack of integration of committed LGBTQ couples into the fabric of community and nation that is the real problem. It is old fashioned oppression..

This is exactly the reason why the struggle for marriage rights and recognition is SO IMPORTANT. Whether every GLBT person decides to marry is irrelevant, the acceptance of GLBT people and our rights will be BUILT on recognition of our relationships.

I've been a partisan in the ORDINATION WAR in my denomination for over 30 years and I have been saying for almost that long that equality in ordination WAS THE WRONG BATTLE for us to be fighting first. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE. Once we succeed at that the Ordination thing will fall into place without a struggle.

Great Poem BTW!

[Daniel]

Even if I could find a church to marry me, many family members and friends would not come to the ceremony. They would consider the suggestion about "buying into its creation" as tantamount to heresy, the end of faith as they know it. For many LGBTQ persons a ceremony with the community impact you are talking about is simply impossible.

I asked the gay rector of the Episcopal church I had been singing at for over 10 years if he would marry my partner and I and he refused flat out after twitching for about 10 seconds. That being a dead end, we decided after some deliberation to have the ceremony officiated by a close friend who is a Zen Buddhist Nun and a minister. Total change of direction (no Udog....that's not how I lost my faith..it's here somewhere). And I'm glad we did that. It was life changing..

I am not debunking what you are saying because I think it has broad implications on how LGBTQ feel about themselves. I know many LGBTQ people who find it very difficult to even aspire to a committed relationship because they don't see how it will fit into their extended community of family and friends. They just don't want to deal with the pain of being the "elephant in the room" in their extended community. It is much easier for them to live their lives in compartments: my family, my gay friends and my sex partners. Keep each compartment separate so that I can feel safe in each one. Of course this is not a whole, integrated way to live...but it helps people to survive.

...and a real wakeup call to my family, which they have never answered to this day. One member of my family sent me a letter saying she would love to come but didn't believe gay people should be allowed to marry. :lol: (One has to laugh or it can kill ya.) I sent back a card that had a mean-faced nun holding a ruler on the front and let her know that I did't want THAT at my wedding (not very nonviolent of me...I know). My parents sent a card (at least they had some manners) and I heard nothing from the rest of my family.. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Persona non grata.

And I have witnessed the same sort of 'reception' with other friends who have gotten hitched. The family is invariably conservative and christian. The invitation just rocks their boat. I think that is what many are afraid of. And I don't blame them. It was hard to deal with. Stung like you can't believe. At least those not attending a straight wedding send gifts if they don't show up. :rolleyes: ;)

Everyone present during the ceremony cried- and I mean cried. We did too. It meant something. It really did. It felt like we were at the center of an huge energetic event that rippled out endlessly. Afterwards, a friend told us that it made her realize that love was really what it was all about. If two people of the same sex could commit to each other without an ounce of legal recognition, it kinda showed her what is was like to not merely go through the motions. And I fear that a good many do.


Gay Marriage

...you and me...
bound together by
presidents scapegoating to victory,
senators amending constitutions,
judges abdicating on minority rights,
pastors indoctrinating holy rollers,
holy rollers voting in presidents, senators and judges,
bashers vying for the top of the FBI hate-crime list.

what could rings and vows add to
the depth of our love
on indignity's road?

Great piece!

It makes one cry to think what has been done in the name of God.


Love initiates and nurtures a marriage, but commitment, intention, community, family, friends, the law, and above all the LOVE OF GOD, sustain it.

So I guess we can manage everything but the law aspect, right? And I hope that day is not too far off. I want to quit worrying about what happens if such and such happens and are the papers in order and- dear...did you remember to bring the power of attorney doc? It gets old real fast sitting in second-class.


I've been a partisan in the ORDINATION WAR in my denomination for over 30 years and I have been saying for almost that long that equality in ordination WAS THE WRONG BATTLE for us to be fighting first. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE. Once we succeed at that the Ordination thing will fall into place without a struggle.

Now- this is brilliant. You are right, of course.

~

When are we getting back to Wheaton? I wanna know what the big guns here think.

[Zerbie]

Omigosh, Daniel, Tdogg, Antony, everyone! I'm sitting here in my happy little bubble reading these words from all of you and my heart is breaking. :'( Antony and Tdogg, your families wouldn't come? :( :'( Daniel, a family member sent a note saying *what?!* And your parents only sent a card? They weren't *there*?! No one else even *acknowledged* you??

('scuse me, please all look the other way while I stomp around and break things for a minute. . . :mad: :mad: :mad: That's all just so d*mn hurtful and - what's the word? - uncaring.Oh man, I'm pissed off. :mad: :mad: :mad: )

Just want you all to know how much I admire you for being who you are, as loving and insightful, gentle and patient, as you are. :love: :dove:

I was going to start a thread to ask something about member's experience with homophobia, but I think maybe I don't have to, now. :'(

[antonyh]

Stung like you can't believe.


Wow, I can't even imagine how it must have felt. Sorry you had to go through that.

[Daniel]

Wow, I can't even imagine how it must have felt. Sorry you had to go through that.


Me too.

Thanks for your good thoughts. :love:

You know- one thing I forgot to mention that was totally unexpected.

We had (I'm using past tense unfortunately) friends- a gay couple actually- and one of the guys just freaked out and couldn't handle coming to the wedding. It brought up all kinds of stuff for him. They arrived- after strange phone calls- about 4 hours later. Odd. Odd. Odd. Showed me that marriage- like death- can really shake people up.

~

Back to Jones and his mishegosh!

Mr. Andrew! Where are you?

[BrentRichards]

We had (I'm using past tense unfortunately) friends- a gay couple actually- and one of the guys just freaked out and couldn't handle coming to the wedding. It brought up all kinds of stuff for him. They arrived- after strange phone calls- about 4 hours later. Odd. Odd. Odd. Showed me that marriage- like death- can really shake people up.

The old cliche about weddings says "The bride looked stunning and the groom looked stunned." So what happens when there are two grooms? Are we both supposed to look stunned?

[Daniel]

The old cliche about weddings says "The bride looked stunning and the groom looked stunned." So what happens when there are two grooms? Are we both supposed to look stunned?

I'll have to scan a photo and let you decide. :lol:

[BrentRichards]

I'll have to scan a photo and let you decide. :lol:

Haha! Please do ... I'd love to see it.

[andrewlittle]

I think you have done an excellent job of tearing into Jones' bias and unrelenting arrogance in referring to, and building arguments around his view as the truth.

The largest delusion I see at work is the concept that this truth is consistent with the bulk of work of classic Christianity. He either has not read classic Christian works, or believes that "classic" refers to the knee-jerk backlash of fundamentalism against modernism in the very late 1800's and beyond.

The proof-texts he offers do little to add credibility to his argument, unless you are firmly entrenched within the camp. His instruction to read Genesis 1-3 to understand "the human condition" is predictable and incredibly weak. The crux of it is the old argument that Adam and Eve are archetypal humans, and their relationship the one and only type ordained by God. It has been refuted ad nauseum, already.

Personally, I find his other scripture references equally predictable and his reasoning vacuous at best.

His version of "classic position of the Christian church on sexuality and sexual morality" is very telling - and imaginative in a non-creative way.
He (God presumably) made us so that one man and one woman could be blessed to form an exclusive and life-long marital union in which to experience the joy of sexual and personal union, and possibly the gift of children.
If he insists that one man and one woman is THE archetypal relationship based on his literal(?) reading, then he has to also agree that child-bearing is not a possible gift, but a order of God. I won't beat that to death, since it already has had some coverage.
We have also believed that all of humanity is fractured by the reality of sin, such that we experience many desires and inclinations that are not in accord with how God made us#1. In fact, we are even distorted in our thinking, such that we have difficulty recognizing the true, the pure, the good.#2 Because of this reality, we celebrate that God spoke to his people through prophets and apostles in words preserved faithfully in the Bible to diagnose our brokenness and to reveal to us how he desires us to live.
#1 - Including the belief that we can know what God thinks is good and righteous. Isn't that the effect of eating the damned fruit in the first place - to know better then God, or at least as much as God.
#2 Which is why he is telling us throughout what is true, pure and good - evidently he is the one who is not affected by the beliefs of classic Christianity in this instance.
#3 Broken humans speaking to broken humans. His belief that the words are directly from God do not mitigate the problem that broken humans could not preserve words literally. Faithfully, yes. But that would not mean literally.
Sexual purity is one way in which Christians are to show their love for their Lord—we are to conduct ourselves in accord with God’s “rules” as revealed in the entire Bible.#1 ... The Bible consistently affirms the blessedness of sexual union between a man and woman married to each other#2, and urges us to restrain ourselves from all sexual intimacies outside that blessed union#2.
#1 - But just the sexual rules, and then even just those that deal with same-sex prohibitions. Wouldn't the "entire" Bible indicate "all" the rules?
#2 Except for Abraham, King David, King Solomon and a score of other people who engaged in sexual unions with more than one partner, some of them spouses and some not, and some of them coerced, tricked or widowed others to engage in sexual activity that does not fit with Jones' "norm".
The Soulforce theology simply and directly says, “God accepts us as we are without qualification.”
Gross, deceitful, gratuitous oversimplification - that's better than saying, "lying sack of sh...", right? If he wanted to say “God accepts us as we are without qualification with regard to our sexual and gender identification”, then I might spare him the derision.

It is nice and tidy, though, that Soulforce theology - and that of its members, I presume - can be summed up in one creed about a specific aspect of people's being. Does he believe that his entire theology can be understood from one of the creeds wo which he subscribes? What need of a Bible then?

Other than that, there's not much more than what you have already said about the author and the introduction, except that I am wondering if there is profit in examining his arguments. I'm willing to do it anyway, although with everything going on I can't promise timely opinions (don't wait for me), but do we think there is something to gain from the study. So far I would have to say, "same shit, different day."

[keltic63]

It seems that whenever someone jumps in and just says, "The debate is over", then the adversary accuses us of not being willing to dialogue.

I'd sure like other's opinions about this...are we cooperating in our oppression by indulging these people?


Yes! that is what happened when I made that statement to P-Kay. I was not willing to participate in my own oppression, and that frustrated P-Kay.
So how do we engage these people in dialogue without cooperating in our own oppression?

[andrewlittle]

Yes! that is what happened when I made that statement to P-Kay. I was not willing to participate in my own oppression, and that frustrated P-Kay.
So how do we engage these people in dialogue without cooperating in our own oppression?

This is especially complicated since the mouthpieces of the dominant culture have successfully painted a picture of conservatism being under attack.

Anti-gay Christians organizations, protestant and Catholic combined, speak to aruably the largest single voting block in the country at the moment. This has been accomplished on the backs of GLBT persons, by convincing a vast number of people of the efficacy and dangers of the "gay agenda". This powerful and well-funded segment of the political landscape preys on peoples' fears and assumes the role of the oppressed and at-risk.

They have power, numbers, funding and more ears in the Federal and state governments than ever before, and yet they successfully assume the role of the down-trodden, oppressed, Christian idealists who are at risk of being legislated out of the divine birthright to serve Jesus. It is fiction - we all know it - but it is fiction that has reached believable proportions for a great many Americans.

And this "defensive" posture is being used to wage an aggressive, vitriolic assualt - an extrememly effective offensive in the political sphere.

Any statement - whether defense or offense - on the part of socially and religiously progressive organizations and individuals is described as further proof of the oppression of the Christian masses. It is artful in a very sad, sick and insidious way.

It has been orchestrated in such a way that, short of remaining absolutely silent, any response is an offensive against core American values. We have been set up to either remain silent, or be perceived as intolerant aggressors.

Remaining silent, however, is not an option. Neither is using the same kinds of deceptive, disengenuous, corrupt - hmmm, unChristian - practices of the "right". Leads us right back to the question, doesn't it - how do we respond without participating in our own oppression?

My vote is aggressively - non-violently, yes, but aggressive to same level as the "right". No matter the response, as long as it is not silent, it will be construed by the architects of this propaganda as oppressive and offensive. They have done a superb, if twisted, job of anticipating approaches and pre-forming defenses based on their strategy.

Strategy is key and, as long as the political actions of pro-GLBT organizations are fractured and isolated, it is also ineffective. I guess the benefit of laboring though analyzing the various documentations of the "rights" strategies is the formulation of our own strategy aimed at the weaknesses, lies and loopholes of their own.

Ultimately, however, it depends on seeing the political aspects of every form of activism. Caring for the church-damaged GLBT folk will be a continuous unending labor of love, unless political steps are also taken to challenge the political machinery of oppression. No GLBT organization should perceive itself outside of the political forum, no matter its primary concentration (be it HIV/AIDS, counseling, religious or whatever).

The political correction of the causes of oppression have to take a central importance for all organizations - otherwise, they will simply serve as band-aids on an ever-growing, festering sore. The healing will occur as a result of attacking the source of the infection, not simply treating the symptoms while pretending that political action is the venue of others.

This was largely a rambling stream of thought - did it make any sense at all?

[Zerbie]

DID it make sense, Andy? Did it????

About the clearest sense I've seen spoken (seen, *spoken???* okay, written:p ) in a long time.

You are correct, and thanks for stating what should be obvious. No matter how gently, lovingly, truthfully, respectfully gay people and their loved ones speak out to defend themselves, it will be labeled an attack. No matter how beautifully and caringly done. We'll do it anyway. We will do it gently, respectfully, patiently, but we will do it firmly and without backing down or ever conceding. Someone will always construe it an attack. We can't worry about that person (about their thoughts, I mean, we do still take care to use as much respect as possible regarding their *personhood*), but we can only concern ourselves with communicating to the vast, reasonable middle-road of mainstream America.

[Emproph]

Every time we agree to debate, we give our adversaries another opportunity to keep the tired, old questions alive.

Until they are settled, we will not be free. So, let's settle them....are we cooperating in our oppression by indulging these people?

No, but I only say so because I've been asking the same question for the past year, while debating.

So how do we engage these people in dialogue without cooperating in our own oppression?

Post #30, out of 102:
Isn't the point you are trying to make here is gays are sinners,and why is it inappropriate for me here to point out biblical scriptures about "sins"?Yes but adultery has never been questioned as being a sin or not. Homosexuality has.

Take note folks. Rarely if ever is this admitted to so starkly. The argument of "sin" ends right then and there.

I don't believe kevin was trying to be "anti-gay," so in that case it was more important to engage first. The argument is over, yet the matter of convincing him of this still exists.

We need to know these arguments back and forth, up and down, and in and out like the back of our hands. Then will we be certain that the debate is over, AND be certain of when to engage (and continue to engage), and when to call troll - whether online or in person.

Three things to remember:

1) (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1958&highlight=remarriage) The adultery of remarriage
2) (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2444&highlight=tolerance) Genocide for Jesus
3) (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2888) Theocrat = traitor

And I'm working on plan B for all three. (ie, an easy to remember comeback truth to counter any resistence to those..)

Leviticus 20:13 IS Genocide for Jesus, and that IS violent, but saying so is NOT violent any more than the truth of the Bible is violent. I think this is where our idea of non-violence goes awry.

Like I said earlier, we don't need to necessarily "sound" alarming while 'sounding the alarm.' But it's imperative that we sound it.

They brought this fight to us and we have every right to insist that they justify it. Point being, they don't have a moral toothpick to stand on.

More importantly, we need to be able to easily demonstrate that.

[andrewlittle]

I guess I'm in a mood, so I'll keep going.

Where, in the plethora of GLBT activist organizations, are the central ones that speak politically and represent a strong central force to be reckoned with?

Where is the progressive equivalent of Focus on the Family or the other "right" organizatons who are organized in their assault - oh, mmm, "defense" of rights? Where is the religious umbrella organization that represents the thoughts, beliefs and centralized communicative power of the progressive churches?

There is such an animal - "Welcoming Church Programs". But just try to find it in a Google search. When was the last time you heard a press release form them?

Almost every denomination has welcoming movements - More Light Presbyterians, Open and Affirming of the UCC, Reconciling Ministries of the UMC, to name but a few. But how far do they go in political activism?

They are more concerned about their little corner of Christendom, and the smaller battles that wage within. They are trying to put band-aids on their own little sores, and missing the enormous cancer that exists in the real world.

Why is it, with the existence of a large number of pro-GLBT churches, that we can't organize an umbrella mouthpiece to speak for all, and to actively fight the larger disease?

The same goes for the secular front.

And, then, where is the intersection of the secular and the religious in the public sphere? Is it the thought that politics is dirty, and should be avoided by respectable people? Or the selfish desire to remain "clean", leaving others to do the "dirty" work.

Well, by God, it ain't gonna happen. We all need to roll in the mud and take risks.

[u-dog]

with the one that Emproph started this morning and about which I have been thinking a lot all day. We are thinking about this struggle TO NARROWLY. The assault of the RRs, the neo-cons, the theocrats is not just an assault on GLBT people and our rights. IT IS AN ALL OUT ASSAULT ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL VALUES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT ITSELF.

Think about it. In the moral realm its the assault on GLBT persons and rights based on a pre-enlightenment, pre-modern "hermeneutic" or "way of reading the Bible. It also gets embodied in the areas of SEX EDUCATION and Reproductive Rights

In the Scientific Realm it is an assault not just on the theory of Evolution but on the whole scientific method and worldview based on a pre-enlightenment understand of scripture that says that if the bible says one thing and science another then the bible is right.

In the Political Realm it is an allout assault on THE COURTS, THE CONSTITUTION, THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and our educational system (promotion of private schools and homeschooling - sytematic defunding of public education ... vilification of teachers etc.)

OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY IS BEING DISASSEMBLED AND REMODELED BY THESE PEOPLE. The coalitions required to stop this will need to include moderate and progressive religious forces, scientifice and intellectual forces, political and social forces

[tdogg]

with the one that Emproph started this morning and about which I have been thinking a lot all day. We are thinking about this struggle TO NARROWLY. The assault of the RRs, the neo-cons, the theocrats is not just an assault on GLBT people and our rights. IT IS AN ALL OUT ASSAULT ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL VALUES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT ITSELF.

I agree with approaching our struggle too narrow - although at the moment I can't come up with a specific idea to approach it any broader. It seems we are mostly defending the next attack as it becomes apparent. In other words, GLBT people are in "defense" mode instead of "offense".

Think about it. In the moral realm its the assault on GLBT persons and rights based on a pre-enlightenment, pre-modern "hermeneutic" or "way of reading the Bible. It also gets embodied in the areas of SEX EDUCATION and Reproductive Rights

The "debate is over" doesn't always work well. It's over for us, for sure (for the most part), but somehow those who feel we are 'sinners' always bring it back to the same issue - our sin and sinful ways - and start the debate back up. Maybe we need some specific techniques to respond to the recurring debate? Interestingly, although the christian right/fundamentalist/extremist folk have no problem saying that to legalize same sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage and family values, they are consistently unable to provide specific examples of how that would happen. Perhaps some fuel for thinking of responses?

In the Scientific Realm it is an assault not just on the theory of Evolution but on the whole scientific method and worldview based on a pre-enlightenment understand of scripture that says that if the bible says one thing and science another then the bible is right.

Would be interesting to get a general idea of how they feel about the Bible verse telling them the sun revolves around the earth?? I know they believe the donkey actually talked. Hmmm, any others??

In the Political Realm it is an allout assault on THE COURTS, THE CONSTITUTION, THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and our educational system (promotion of private schools and homeschooling - sytematic defunding of public education ... vilification of teachers etc.)

This is the tough one. I think it's going to come down to reaching as many people as possible, demonstrating that our lives are not basically any different than theirs, there is nothing abnormal or strange about us, that isn't present in all of humankind. However, the power the Christian right wingers have in politics is incredible and quite scary. How do we go about dismantling that power? I believe it's going to take reaching the people who vote for the politicians, and going out on the limb to vote for those we actually want to see in office and not because we don't feel they could win. It's also going to mean becoming more active in approaching our politicians, as GLBT people and as a unified community (thereby indicating some power ourselves), and trying to humanize it all. I believe while the moral and scientific issues are key, this one is the key'ist'.

OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY IS BEING DISASSEMBLED AND REMODELED BY THESE PEOPLE. The coalitions required to stop this will need to include moderate and progressive religious forces, scientifice and intellectual forces, political and social forces

Excellent fodder for thought U-dog.

[tdogg]

Darn, I didn't mean that I agree that the approach should be narrow, but that it is narrow and we need to somehow broaden it. Just wanted to clarify!

[Zerbie]

with the one that Emproph started this morning and about which I have been thinking a lot all day. We are thinking about this struggle TO NARROWLY. The assault of the RRs, the neo-cons, the theocrats is not just an assault on GLBT people and our rights. IT IS AN ALL OUT ASSAULT ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL VALUES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT ITSELF.

Think about it. In the moral realm its the assault on GLBT persons and rights based on a pre-enlightenment, pre-modern "hermeneutic" or "way of reading the Bible. It also gets embodied in the areas of SEX EDUCATION and Reproductive Rights

In the Scientific Realm it is an assault not just on the theory of Evolution but on the whole scientific method and worldview based on a pre-enlightenment understand of scripture that says that if the bible says one thing and science another then the bible is right.

In the Political Realm it is an allout assault on THE COURTS, THE CONSTITUTION, THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and our educational system (promotion of private schools and homeschooling - sytematic defunding of public education ... vilification of teachers etc.)

OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY IS BEING DISASSEMBLED AND REMODELED BY THESE PEOPLE. The coalitions required to stop this will need to include moderate and progressive religious forces, scientifice and intellectual forces, political and social forces

Ding! Ding! Ding! :smashy: :smashy: :smashy:

Indeed, it IS about disassembling the Enlightenment.

And I just spent a semester studying that era, and I can tell you, these same exact conversations were going on in the 18th century, too. In much the same words.

"God made no creature for the purpose of condemnation. I was born attracted to other men!"
"Sinner - you can't possibly be born that way!"
20 wagonloads of brush.
200 faggots
One torch, and a day's wages paid to the guy who held the torch to the pile.

[davidb]

So here is Mel White's suggestion:

"Second, we must refuse to cooperate any longer in the studies or debates. Continuing in the debate implies that the debate is legitimate. It is not. We should not only refuse to cooperate in these studies and debates, we should oppose, boycott and protest them. To say, "I will no longer participate let alone be the subject of your study or your debate" is an act of liberation and humanization. To say, "I know who I am, and if you want to know, ask me; don't tell me," is an act of self-actualization and integrity. Let us decide now and forever. The debate has ended. The verdict is in. God has created us equal - and we will settle for nothing less."

This thread was started to debate Stanton Jones's rebuttal to Soulforce. By debating this work are we not implying that the debate is legitimate.

Or when P-Kay wants to debate us, instead of debating (because that implies the debate is legitimate), we could say, "I will no longer participate let alone be the subject of your study or your debate...I know who I am, and if you want to know, ask me; don't tell me."

See what I am driving at. I'm trying to reconcile our engagement with the adversary with what Dr. White is saying in this article.

This is exactly the language I think we need to find in the discussions we're faced with here with our adversarial brothers and sisters. To bridge the ideological divide is no small task. Not that it isn't worthwhile. I just don't know how we get there.

[Emproph]

Interestingly, although the christian right/fundamentalist/extremist folk have no problem saying that to legalize same sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage and family values, they are consistently unable to provide specific examples of how that would happen. Perhaps some fuel for thinking of responses?

I had to upload this just for you tdogg. 'Been sittin on my dvr for MONTHS.

John Stemberger of the florida4marriage anti-gay marriage amendment, using the nature of cause and effect as the explanation as to HOW gay-marriage affects his marriage.

~~
Case study alert everyone.
~~

He is asked the question point blank: "How does same sex marriage affect your marriage," but by the time he gets around to answering it, you forget the-entire-context-of-the-question, and he's able to get away with murder (by using the example of suicide)

Warning: this is a live case study of true evil:

John Stemberger, starring in:

Gay marriage = blow my brains out (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2747276171740563526) (2 min)

PLENTY of fodder there, including threadworthy, but you've got to hand it to him, that was a performance worthy of an Oscar. If Oscars were spelled O-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n.

That's actually some good stuff, 'specially that opening line. "because that equal rights thing...which always comes up.." That poor woman, she's in shambles.

Arthleen Rippy. What-do-ya say we invite her into our conversation?

How 'bout Stan, shouldn't we invite Stan too?

PS, not ready to invite John Stemberger yet...

[BrentRichards]

This guy should run for office ... he's got BS down pat.

"Suicide has costs, if I blow my brains out, somebody's got to clean it up, there's a cost."

Wow, now that's a compassionate Christian view of things.

[Emproph]

Not much to go on yet, just a heads up.

From Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/09/study-of-exodus-participants-to-be-released-next-week/):
Study of Exodus Participants To Be Released Next Week

A press release (http://www.ivpress.com/media/exgays-pr-09042007.php) by InterVarsity Press gives specifics about the study on which we reported here (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/08/results-of-secret-exodus-study-soon-to-be-released/) and here (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/08/update-more-on-ex-gay-study-the-thomas-project/).
In September, InterVarsity Press will publish the results of a longitudinal study conducted by researchers Stanton L. Jones (Wheaton College) and Mark A. Yarhouse (Regent University)...


That second "here" link had this to say:

An anonymous source said they have contact with someone participating in the study, called the Thomas Project, out of Wheaton College, and the study consists of questions asked once a year by phone. This participant also noted that the questions were oversimplified, requiring basic responses where they felt detailed explanations were needed. We have good reason to trust this contact, though we will respect their request for anonymity.

There are unconfirmed reports that the study has a sample of as few as 100 to 150 participants.

If, and that's a big if, those last parts in bold are to be believed, then this study will have about as much mainstream clout as the Spitzer study (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm). The press release however, implies otherwise.

More info at BoxTurtleBulletin, here (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/09/763) and here (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/09/765).

[Emproph]

There's tons of info out there already on this, but if you're interested in keeping up with headless monsters running around out there, this is very likely to be one of them to "prove" that we can all "change."

It's worse than useless, as I've attempted to help illustrate from my last post (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/09/exodus-puts-upbeat-spin-on-ex-gay-study-finding-little-change/#comment-29445) at Ex-Gay Watch:
It seems they’ve taken a lesson from the Intelligent Design crowd. Poke holes, find the “missing links,” and the need for proof won’t matter anymore.

Teach the Controversy. This is perhaps the grandest example of that yet.
Just something to be aware of, and this'll be going on for awhile, so a couple of sites to put on your favorites:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/

[Daniel]

Interesting stuff on Turtlebox. I smiled....well....actually laughed when I read the following in an article there that quoted Christianity Today.

We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term.

As the author duly notes: complicated in a Larry Craig kind of way.

Teach the controversy.......indeed.

You are so right Emproph.