Wheaton's Response

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/tid...s_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/chri...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.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

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.

Originally Posted by widipedia

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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:

Originally Posted by antonyh

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:

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 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:

Originally Posted by Emproph

...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.

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. (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:

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). 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 . 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...

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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:

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/inst....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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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/worl...H523/CH523.asp

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Emproph

"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]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

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'!



Gimme an 'elibacy'...
~~

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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/worl...H523/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.