Wheaton's Response

[antonyh]

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resource...toMelWhite.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]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

we can help you with the big words

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by keltic63

we can help you with the big words

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

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by keltic63

we can help you with the big words

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh brother!

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by antonyh

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resource...toMelWhite.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 :

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/tid...s_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/tid...s_yarhouse.htm

Detailed critique:
http://www.johnnyskeptic75.com/#2._I...ychopathology_

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._C...ity_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/tid...s_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.