A couple of months ago, Inside Higher Ed published an article by Joshua Wolff making a passionate case that many Christian colleges, in adhering to the traditions of faith and Scripture on sexual morality, do harm to their homosexual students. Wolff concluded that “accrediting bodies that govern colleges and programs must step in and say ‘enough’ when schools use religion to hide from accountability for policies and programs that can cause psychological harm” to such students.
Today the website publishes a lengthy reply by psychologist and Wheaton College provost Stanton L. Jones. It is impossible for me to do justice to the subtlety, and the generosity of spirit, of Jones’s essay. Here is just a single paragraph from near the end:
Religiously distinctive educational communities, once common in the Western world, are now a tiny minority, and the legitimacy of our very existence is questionable in the minds of some. Far from using religious freedoms as a pretext to oppress or discriminate against GLBTQ persons, after careful review and years of debate, many traditionalists have reaffirmed that moral concern about homosexual conduct and about all sexual intimacy outside of marriage is well grounded in the theological and moral core of Christian faith. Similar conclusions have been drawn in traditionalist Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist contexts as well.
The whole exchange is well worth reading. But Jones’s essay prompts the following tangential–or perhaps not so tangential–thought. He ably defends what we may properly call an institutional claim of religious conscience here, on behalf of a Christian college as a particular kind of community with a particular kind of integrity. But individuals have their own claims of conscience too. We need not settle here whether the individual claims are grounded in the claims of the Christian community, or the community’s claims in the dignity and integrity of the individuals who make it up. But, to confine ourselves to the academic context, what of the professor or student who cannot conscientiously acquiesce in the norms of sexual morality (if that is what they are rightly called) that dominate public, secular private, and not a few self-described Christian colleges today? It may not feel right merely to live one’s own life conscientiously; one may experience a deeply felt call of the conscience to speak out about such matters. Yet in the modern multi-versity, a powerful pressure is exerted either to celebrate the “diversity” of sexual orientations, or to silence oneself.
Will the world of higher education sort itself out into two moral camps in diametrical opposition to one another–a small one in which it is considered wrong to reject the historic Christian teaching on sexuality, and a large one in which it is considered wrong to embrace that teaching?
Or has that sorting already been finished? And how much longer will it be before the larger camp simply decides it must conquer the smaller one?
May 23rd, 2011 | 12:32 pm
I was particularly glad to read: “On the other hand, traditionalists also dissent from the inclination so common today to accept the anchoring of one’s entire identity around sexual orientation.”
May 23rd, 2011 | 12:53 pm
[...] here. No Comments » Filed under: Deseret Review | No Tag No Tagx May 23rd, 2011 10:53:51x [...]
May 23rd, 2011 | 1:02 pm
TL; DR Force religious schools to sanction homosexuality by denying them accreditation.
Real answer. Let religious schools do as they want, and homosexuals can go to one of the many secular schools and not worry about it.
May 23rd, 2011 | 2:02 pm
It is good insofar is it goes to appeal to “traditional Christian morality.” However, I do believe it is a mistake not to take it a bit farther.
Sometimes our public discourse makes it sound like the moral code is a set of bylaws which are required to be a member of the “Christian Club.” It is well, instead, to recall that this is God’s will and the matter of salvation is at stake.
For this very reason, it is contrary to charity to pretend that such a grave breach of natural law as well as God’s stated law, as is homosexual behavior (I’m carefully excluding orientation), is somehow acceptable, and simply a matter of choice or policy for an institution. True charity requires truth, which has the power to set free those who will accept it.
An institution which calls itself Christian really has no choice in the matter.
May 23rd, 2011 | 2:48 pm
@ Dblade – “Real answer. Let religious schools do as they want, and homosexuals can go to one of the many secular schools and not worry about it.”
Yes, that makes a great deal of logical sense, but the urges of homosexual activists arise not from logic but from the relentless and fearsome demands of a violated conscience. As J. Budziszewski wrote in his seminal First Things essay years ago, The Revenge of Conscience, if they do not repent, then they must tilt the whole world until it aligns with their frame of reference. And don’t forget Neuhaus’ law, which speaks to the same dynamic of violated conscience: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.” Homosexual activists’ worldly-minded allies go ahead of them along the broad road toward the wide gate, simply shouting, “Make a straight path for the offended to travel!”
The world loves the darkness and hates the light and will do anything it can to quench that light. But by God’s grace, John 1:5 (GNT) will always be true: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.”
May 23rd, 2011 | 4:19 pm
Real answer. Let religious schools do as they want, and homosexuals can go to one of the many secular schools and not worry about it.
That’s really not at all what Jones was saying. What he was saying is that issues of sexual orientation should not and must not be boiled down into a secular college vs. Christian college “cause”.
It’s a flight of fantasy to think that Christian schools can simply say, “Homosexuals, just go somewhere else.” Christian schools such as Wheaton will by necessity have to deal with students who have homosexual desires and orientations. But they must be allowed to deal with them within the context of their religious commitments.
There is a real and terrific danger in the proposition that accrediting institutions should use their power to force religious schools to approve of homosexual behavior, as Joshua Wolff argued. But the right response is not to simply expect religious schools to drive homosexuals away, but instead to allow religious schools to address homosexual students in a manner that is both charitable and in keeping with the school’s beliefs.
May 23rd, 2011 | 4:23 pm
I don’t care too much in particular about homosexual issues–I care about Christian sexual ethics as a whole and how the university handles those issues.
Here’s some good news: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/us/21religion.html
May 23rd, 2011 | 4:47 pm
“Will the world of higher education sort itself out into two moral camps in diametrical opposition to one another–a small one in which it is considered wrong to reject the historic Christian teaching on sexuality, and a large one in which it is considered wrong to embrace that teaching?”
Yes.
“Or has that sorting already been finished?”
Not quite yet, but it’s getting there quick.
“And how much longer will it be before the larger camp simply decides it must conquer the smaller one?”
The larger camp will try not so much to “conquer” the smaller camp as to *eradicate* the smaller camp.
“Exterminate all the brutes!” as someone once said.
May 23rd, 2011 | 6:51 pm
I respect Jones’ intellectual integrity and his desire to find a theological response that both shares his values and respects the reality of those who experience same-sex attraction.
However, in his rebuttal to Wolfe, he makes two common – but fatal – errors.
First he equates an experience and a non-experience as those these are equal in their impact. Wolfe experienced a constant fear and Hill did not experience a constant fear and Jones presents these as though Hill’s experience entirely offsets that of Wolfe.
To illustrate this disconnect, consider what we would think if Jones discounted someone being beaten with a shovel by presenting someone who had not. How would we react to the following sentence:
“While there may be many narratives of being beaten with a shovel that emerge from religiously conservative settings, there also are many contrasting narratives that are not being heard in non-religious academe.”
Surely we would think that Jones had missed the rather obvious point. Our emphasis ought to be on the harm done rather than dismiss the harm by noting that some people survive.
Secondly, Jones fails to note that the differences between the two men most likely account for the difference in their experience.
Wolfe, whose path of discovery led him away from accepted teachings experienced pain, rejection, and mistreatment. Hill, who confirmed accepted teaching, had a “predominant experience [] of support and care.”
Rather than see these as unrelated, a logical response would see that conservative Christian universities withhold support and care for any who are not “selectively and judicious” in their disclosure and who do not offer themselves us as testimonies “that homosexuality was not God’s original creative intention for humanity.”
In other words, Jones’ entire rebuttal serves rather at a confirmation of Wolfe’s contention.
I do not share Joshua Wolfe’s opinions about accreditation. Nor do I think that those who share a conservative sexual ethic should be forced to abandon their institutional beliefs in order to be measured on the merits of their education program.
But it is long past due that those who cultivate and encourage a culture of disapproval of homosexuality cease deception on the matter. If you are hostile and rejecting of gay people – and, unquestionably Wheaton is hostile and rejecting of gay people who do not serve themselves up on the alter of eternal celibacy as a illustration in the culture war – then admit it.
May 23rd, 2011 | 9:58 pm
@Timothy Kincaid,
Those who disagree with you should just admit they hate gays? A little subtlety in how you put it, but it was still like “being beaten with a shovel”. All this logic and it doesn’t occur to you that Hill did not experience the same fear due to the path he chose.
Acting on our emotions is the ancient and common human approach. The trouble is someone’s feelings always get hurt. Insisting that our personal feelings not get hurt perpetuates the cycle. How to end the cycle is the question at hand. I read no answers from Joshua Wolff nor from you.
May 23rd, 2011 | 10:00 pm
“But it is long past due that those who cultivate and encourage a culture of disapproval of homosexuality cease deception on the matter.”
Where is the deception? Wheaton’s provost’s views were published publicly. Are you calling him a liar?
May 23rd, 2011 | 11:11 pm
Ethan:
Evangelical Christianity is clear on homosexuality being a sin. There’s only a limited amount of things they can do, without breaking that.
The student needs to be responsible. Either you agree with the policies in place, or you realize you can’t and leave. The teachings will drive people away because they force a choice. Replace homosexuality with atheism for example. If you are an atheist, there’s no “Addresssing it in a manner charitable…etc.” Either the atheist keeps his head down and realizes if he likes the school he can’t expect it to sanction his atheism, or he transfers.
It’s simple. It’s being man enough to accept that your beliefs have consequences.
May 23rd, 2011 | 11:11 pm
Yes, that makes a great deal of logical sense, but the urges of homosexual activists arise not from logic but from the relentless and fearsome demands of a violated conscience.
Ah, the essential claim of the Christian Right: “If you disagree with us, your conscience is bad.” In this case, Occam’s Razor suggests you’re incorrect. Loving your enemies begins with being willing to believe the best of them.
May 24th, 2011 | 12:21 am
The left also says if you disagree with us you are bad. In my catholic college and church, those who hold to traditional natural law in this area are regarded as ‘haters’ or ‘homophobic’.
May 24th, 2011 | 4:22 am
The left also says if you disagree with us you are bad. In my catholic college and church, those who hold to traditional natural law in this area are regarded as ‘haters’ or ‘homophobic’.
They don’t just say you are “bad”.
Notice how they use the language of diagnosis
What they actually are saying is that you are sick.
May 24th, 2011 | 10:20 am
What they actually are saying is that you are sick.
austinne, blake: Yes, there are judgmental people on the Left as well as the Right, obviously, although overall the Left is less nasty than the Right in my experience. But no matter: two wrongs don’t make a right. The Left says you’re sick, but that’s exactly what you say of homosexuals. In fact we all have blind spots, and we’re all sick. The Church is a hospital for sinners. It’s unloving to always presume the worst about our enemies motives.
May 24th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Dblade, you’re conflating two things: homosexual orientation, and homosexual behavior/advocacy of public approval for homosexual behavior. I’ll call these two things “homosexuality” an “pro-homosexualism.”
It’s an understandable error to make, considering that it’s the basis for the entire “gay rights” movement. But it’s still an error, and Jones rightly doesn’t fall into it. That’s why he cites the example of the homosexual student who thrived at Wheaton and has dedicated himself to celibacy.
One of his major points is that one can be “homosexual” in terms of desires and orientation, yet not “pro-homosexualist” in terms of political identity and sexual ethics.
This is a very important argument to make, as it’s one of the chief things that distinguishes the gay rights issue from the civil rights issue of race.
That makes it key in answering calls like Wolff’s to treat pro-homosexuality as a protected class identity inherent to those of homosexual orientation. If they were indeed identical like Wolff thinks they are, then it would seem much more sensible to ask that accrediting institutions treat suppression of pro-homosexualism as a form of illegitimate discrimination.
So yes, Wheaton is most certainly justified — and duty-bound — in keeping their institution free of pro-homosexualism. But this does not mean, and must not mean, that it should require everyone with homosexual urges to seek their education elsewhere.
May 24th, 2011 | 11:27 am
Yes, there are judgmental people on the Left as well as the Right, obviously, although overall the Left is less nasty than the Right in my experience.
No, I mean that the left actually employs a frame that says anyone who disagrees with them is literally, seriously suffering from a mental illness. If you listen to their use of metaphors you find they rely on it quite heavily.
The strategy is the language of diagnosis – “homophobia” being just one of many instances of diagnostic-sounding language suggesting that possession of a conservative or traditional opinion is in fact evidence of pathological anxieties.
Because the Left flatters itself that they are very smart, elite, scientific. So, you see, that puts them in a position to “diagnose” others. And, of course, once an “expert” – someone who isn’t afraid of science – has diagnosed someone as having a serious defect in their mental or emotional reasoning, there’s no point in listening to that person anymore; people who are seriously unstable, or incapable of forming fully adult mental processes, or ruled by their neurotic terrors – people like this are not in a position to offer an opinion or judgement.
In fact, it’s not at all uncommon for people to take this to its logical conclusion: why do we even let people like that vote?
The disease schtick is a metaphor to watch out for. It really is.
May 24th, 2011 | 11:34 am
And perhaps I can be clearer with an analogy to another sexual issue: pornography.
Suppose there were a strong political movement advocating that viewing pornography was sexually acceptable. Wheaton holds that it is not, and it discourages the viewing of porn with various policies.
It would be reasonable for Wheaton to maintain its views and its policies, and yet not automatically expel any student who confesses to having strong urges to view pornography, so long as the student agrees with the college’s opposition to porn and actively tries to abide by the anti-porn-use policies.
If the student instead publicly declares that he supports the porn-is-okay movement, or advocates a change in the college’s views on porn, or repeatedly demonstrates his inability to abide by the policies, then the school would be justified in expelling him.
May 24th, 2011 | 11:54 am
No, I mean that the left actually employs a frame that says anyone who disagrees with them is literally, seriously suffering from a mental illness.
Not like “the Loony Left” or “environmentalist wackos,” eh? Or worse, “feminazis.”
The Left flatters itself
Both sides flatter themselves that they act in a morally superior fashion. And you’re providing one more example.
May 24th, 2011 | 12:00 pm
Thank you, Ethan C., for your astute analogy. I agree 100%.
May 24th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
Ken,
I would imagine the left seems less nasty to you because you are on it. But seriously, have you ever seen the comment section of Kos or even CNN. Those guys have refined nastiness to an art form. The right has absolutely no monopoly (or even a majority share) of nastiness.
PS. As someone who was in academia and experienced firsthand the rigidity, humorlessness, and intolerance of dissent of academic feminists, I find the term “feminazis” both funny and apt.
May 24th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
In my experience, the nastiness and judgmentalism of the Left is both more intense and more extensive than the nastiness and judgmentalism of the Right. The Left regards the Right as, in equal measures, “evil,” “stupid,” and “sick,” whereas the Right mostly just regards the Left as “stupid,” and as “evil” and “sick” mostly just as a consequence of its “stupidity.” The major difference, I think, is that many people on the Right have themselves been on the Left at some point in their lives, whereas very few people on the Left have ever been on the Right. Many on the Right were on the Left until they “grew up,” and therefore there’s a tendency on the Right to see those on the Left as “naive” and “immature” more than anything else — “stupid” because “naive” and “immature,” and “evil” and “sick” only as a consequence of the “stupidity” that comes with “naivete” and “immaturity.” The Left, conversely, is — again, in my experience — much less understanding of the Right and therefore much more judgmental, and much more nasty, more intense, and more extensive in what its judgements are. Just some thoughts.
May 24th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
I’ve been more or less on the Right and Left at different times, although I’ve always voted Democratic. I spent years defending the integrity of conservative Christians on social issues, even as I moved more and more to the Left on homosexuality (but I think Jones’ article is great). So while I don’t read the Daily Kos, or watch CNN, I know how nasty secular liberals can be. Oh, and Franky Schaeffer too, who has traded right-wing hatred for left-wing hatred.
I should have been clear that I was mainly referring to the Christian Right and Left. Many on the Christian Right seem to love Limbaugh and his ilk, and there is a local broadcaster here who proudly stands up for what he sees as Christian values, social and i.e. small government conservatism, and relentlessly sneers at liberals. Where are the progressive Christian broadcasters and bloggers (Schaeffer aside) who are relentlessly nasty?
Yes, the idea that liberalism is immature is very popular on the Left. Certainly one can hold liberal principles naively, or as an excuse for license. And one can hold conservative principles selfishly, as an excuse for selfishness. Is one any better than the other?
And Fred, when conservatives held power, were they any less tolerant of liberal opinion? Are they now?
May 24th, 2011 | 2:15 pm
I wonder if we could discuss the original article, rather than just talking about the left and the right in general terms?
May 24th, 2011 | 3:03 pm
Ken,
I can’t speak to broadcasters, but there are plenty of “progressive Christian” bloggers and writers who are nasty as can be. To find out just how nasty some “progressive Christians” can be, try being theologically orthodox or traditionalist in the Episcopal Church (TEC) or the Lutheran Church (ELCA) or, now, in the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). Sitting on the fence between Christianity and the secular Left, they combine the worst aspects of secular liberals with those of their counterparts on the religious Right. In other words, they are heretics and Pharisees at once. Quite a feat.
May 24th, 2011 | 4:56 pm
Taverner, I’m sure you know whereof you speak, but I’m an orthodox Episcopalian in an orthodox Episcopal church. What troubles me is that there are so many nasty leaders on the Right.
Ethan, I’m sorry to have switched subjects. I’ll say no more on this one.
May 24th, 2011 | 9:27 pm
Ken,
If you were one of the Episcopalians now being sued to be kicked out of your church for actually believing what is in the BCP and saying so during the liturgy with fingers uncrossed then maybe … just maybe … your fears would be differently placed. You will probably find yourself to be in that position either sooner of later if your church is as “orthodox” as what you say. Good luck, but brace yourself — the ride will be rough and not one for which you set the course.
May 24th, 2011 | 9:49 pm
Matt: We’ve reached a point where a professor who defends infanticide (Peter Singer) is celebrated while another professor who believes that the sexual powers of women are ordered toward each other is considered “crazy.”
May 24th, 2011 | 11:32 pm
Dear Rusty: Can the new broom at First Things do some sweeping? Why not start requiring real names and e-mails to be posted of everyone who makes comments. It would discourage cowardice and wouldn’t that be, maybe, a first thing? Maybe even THE first thing?
May 25th, 2011 | 7:14 am
No, I mean that the left actually employs a frame that says anyone who disagrees with them is literally, seriously suffering from a mental illness.
Not like “the Loony Left” or “environmentalist wackos,” eh? Or worse, “feminazis.”
Those are ad hominem attacks, but what I am talking about is more than just an ad hominem attack.
It is a specific type of ad hominem attack that deliberately imitates scientific/medical language to suggest a real diagnosis.
I am not saying anything about whether the right is or is not nasty, or superior. I am not comparing the two, or even mentioning the right. I am describing to a specific tactic – or strategy might be the more apt word – the strategy of using pseudo scientific language to dehumanize opponents. This tactic is used exclusively by the left because it relies on specifically left wing forms of flattery.
I point this out so that people can see the tactic when it is used on them. To call someone a name – like “feminazi” or “wingnut”, or even some of the overtly obscene names hurled at Sarah Palin (or even at Hillary Clinton’s voters by the extreme left) – is one thing. But when there is an attempt to pass off an insult, not as an insult, but as a scientific “fact” – to call someone not a “whacko” but a person suffering from a medical condition – that’s what people are doing when they use the phrase “homophobic” to try to suggest that people who don’t share the politically correct view of homosexuality are somehow literally diseased, and that they are in a position to recognize and diagnose said condition.
Or that people who don’t agree with a variety of left wing positions are suffering from various forms of sexual, mental, and emotional dysfunction, repression, or disorder.
May 25th, 2011 | 7:44 am
One does not have to be a disciple of Carl Schmitt to recognize that some opposing positions are irreconcilable and that no amount of discussion or compromise can settle them. There can be no genuine agreement, because in the end there is nothing to agree about. The only solution is political, because politics is about victory or defeat; not discussion, but decision.
The belief in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions is an illusion, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one – merely represents the victory of one political faction over another. Pluralism is an illusion, because no real state would ever allow other forces, like the family or the church, to contest its power.
“Political warfare in short, is warfare–not public relations. It is one part persuasion and two parts deception….The aim of political warfare…is to discredit, displace, and neutralize an opponent, to destroy a competing ideology, and to reduce the adherents to political impotence. It is to make one’s own values prevail by working the levers of power, as well as by using persuasion.” (Barnett, 1961).
Wolff is astute enough to realise this and Jones, I fear, is not.
May 25th, 2011 | 8:27 am
“Dear Rusty: Can the new broom at First Things do some sweeping? Why not start requiring real names and e-mails to be posted of everyone who makes comments. It would discourage cowardice and wouldn’t that be, maybe, a first thing? Maybe even THE first thing?”
YEAH!
May 25th, 2011 | 9:09 am
Michael PS,
What I think Jones realizes is that pastoral and psychological care for struggling students is different from political warfare.
As to this:
The belief in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions is an illusion, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one – merely represents the victory of one political faction over another. Pluralism is an illusion, because no real state would ever allow other forces, like the family or the church, to contest its power.
I presume you must be an anarchist, as I can’t see how this statement makes any sense from any other political perspective.
May 25th, 2011 | 7:42 pm
Mike Melendez
Yes, you have it exactly. “Hill did not experience the same fear due to the path he chose.” Because Hill conformed to the school’s teaching, he was not made to experience fear. Wolfe, who did not conform, was tormented.
I would suggest that Christian schools offer love and acceptance which is not based on the path that one discovers or whether one conforms with a doctrinal teaching. Coercing one into doctrine is not a wise way to build faith and, in my experience, tends to result in a total rejection of Christ and his body.
We must remember how Jesus directed us how the world would be able to identify us… and when he said “by your love”, he didn’t add an apostrophe to a subparagraph explaining that love really means “tough love” or that it is dependent on total agreement.
May 25th, 2011 | 7:46 pm
ken, blake, etc.
I’m not sure that a Christian has the option of saying, “yeah, but you do the same evil to me that I do to you so therefore I’m no worse.”
I’m pretty sure that Jesus didn’t say, “”Therefore all things whatsoever men do to you, do ye even so to them.” I’m pretty certain that there was “ye would that men should do to you” in there somewhere.
May 25th, 2011 | 8:00 pm
Ethan C.
It is a common claim that conservative Christians distinguish between homosexual orientation and what you call pro-homosexualist political identity and sexual ethics. They don’t, of course.
Invariable, it is not the sin that is fired from its job, driven from its home, have its children taken from it, receive death threats (as happened at Messiah University), or have rallies declaring that it is vile. For some reason, the sinner is the one who is subjected to truly ungodly conduct.
But assuming, for sake of argument, that this was truly a distinction that you made, look at what you are saying.
You have deemed a people worthy of mistreatment for the sin of disagreeing with you. Of “a pro-homosexualist political identity” – even though Scripture says nothing whatsoever about political identities and their sinfulness or holiness or anythingness, you have raised politics as a deity.
Of a sexual ethic with which you disagree – one you assign to all gay people without distinction.
You have elevated politics and conformity onto an altar and give it the praise that is due to God.
May 25th, 2011 | 8:13 pm
Tavernor,
I am not a member of ELCA, TEC, of PCUSA. But I have been an observer of the process.
I was impressed by the desire on the part of modernists not to steamshovel the traditionalists. For decades issue were sent to committees and much prayer and many tears were shed. Much was given to the spirit of communion and community. And repeatedly I saw those who felt excluded and rejected put their feelings aside so as not to hurt those who were excluding and rejecting them.
Yes, it was painful for all. But this nastiness that you speak of – the nastiness that came from those you call “heretics and Pharisees” – I’ve seen little of it.
And surely there has never been a single person in the PCUSA with more vile rhetoric, more declarations of contempt, more true nastiness than that which has come from Dr. Robert Gagnon. Or, for that matter, in any denomination.
May 25th, 2011 | 9:55 pm
ken, blake, etc.
I’m not sure that a Christian has the option of saying, “yeah, but you do the same evil to me that I do to you so therefore I’m no worse.”
At no point in time did I make anything like that argument.
I am simply pointing out a particular dirty trick, because this dirty trick loses much of its power when people recognize what is being done to them.
I personally believe it is better for everyone if the arguments are argued on their merits. Both the person who is making the argument and the person hearing the argument are more likely to learn and grow as a result of the exchange.
May 25th, 2011 | 10:02 pm
Timothy, I haven’t justified one side’s evil on the basis of another’s. Nothing of the sort. I’ve merely acknowledged that the Left is not without guilt for the same thing I see more often on the Right.
Regarding how the very many conservatives who really follow Christ in regards to homosexuality treat homosexuals, you’re not thinking clearly either. Though they believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, they do none of the things you list. Instead, they treat gays themselves with the same respect and dignity as straights. But treating people with respect and dignity does not mean acting as if you think their sin is not sin.
May 26th, 2011 | 3:46 am
Ethan C
I am very far from being an anarchist. I believe the preservation of the state and the stable institutions of society is the highest temporal good and that anarchy is the worst of evils. I simply have no illusions about the nature of politics as actually practised in the real world.
Accordingly, for me, the crucial question is not whether a government is democratic but whether its enactments are reliably just; if they are, its not being democratic is no objection, while if they are not, its being democratic is no excuse.
May 26th, 2011 | 10:42 am
Michael PS,
Ah, a totalitarian. That was my second guess.
May 26th, 2011 | 11:56 am
Mr. Kincaid,
It is a common claim that conservative Christians distinguish between homosexual orientation and what you call pro-homosexualist political identity and sexual ethics. They don’t, of course.
Speak for yourself. I do, and Stan Jones makes it absolutely clear in his article that he’s trying his best to do so at Wheaton. We’re sinful humans just like everybody else, so we have many failings in our charity, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try.
But assuming, for sake of argument, that this was truly a distinction that you made, look at what you are saying.
Thanks for the assumption!
You have deemed a people worthy of mistreatment for the sin of disagreeing with you. Of “a pro-homosexualist political identity” – even though Scripture says nothing whatsoever about political identities and their sinfulness or holiness or anythingness, you have raised politics as a deity.
No, Mr. Kincaid, I’m doing the opposite. It is the pro-homosexual movement that insists that having homosexual desires gives a person an inherent political identity as an aggrieved class. What I’m insisting is that having a homosexual orientation does not have to form the core of a person’s identity, nor does it preclude having a traditional Christian view of sexual ethics.
Of a sexual ethic with which you disagree – one you assign to all gay people without distinction.
You have elevated politics and conformity onto an altar and give it the praise that is due to God.
I’m not sure you read my post. I was in fact arguing for the exact opposite of such identification.
Why don’t you read my post about pornography? I think that I made it very clear what the difference is between a sexual struggle that must be compassionately counseled and an unacceptable theological advocacy that can reasonably lead to expulsion.
But let’s put our cards on the table, Mr. Kincaid. You don’t think homosexual behavior is wrong, and you think that traditional Christian sexual ethics are corrupt.
Or am I wrong? Do you think there is a way for Evangelical schools like Wheaton to be compassionate and loving of homosexual students without abandoning their beliefs about sexual ethics?
May 26th, 2011 | 12:13 pm
Mr. Kincaid, after reading some of your blog posts on the site you linked to, and realizing that you’re quite a strong proponent of the pro-homosexualist position, I’ve got another question:
Out of curiosity, what sort of sexual ethics could a Christian college adhere to that would be acceptable to you? What sexual behaviors and beliefs could reasonably be grounds for expulsion?
May 26th, 2011 | 5:55 pm
“I was impressed by the desire on the part of modernists not to steamshovel the traditionalists. For decades issue were sent to committees and much prayer and many tears were shed. Much was given to the spirit of communion and community. And repeatedly I saw those who felt excluded and rejected put their feelings aside so as not to hurt those who were excluding and rejecting them.
Yes, it was painful for all. But this nastiness that you speak of – the nastiness that came from those you call ‘heretics and Pharisees’ – I’ve seen little of it.”
ROFLOL. Spin worthy of White House press release. Having also been witness to such proceedings, I would never recognize them from your fiction. Nor would my church, which is being targeted by millions of dollars in lawsuits from the loving ECUSA… But why bother. Your narrative is backwards but right. One side is good, the other is bad. That is why it is a legitimate fight.
May 26th, 2011 | 10:46 pm
It is the pro-homosexual movement that insists that having homosexual desires gives a person an inherent political identity as an aggrieved class. What I’m insisting is that having a homosexual orientation does not have to form the core of a person’s identity,. . .
Ethan, I agree, but put yourself in their shoes. What you’re constantly reminded of, and what you gain attention for, does shape your identity.
May 27th, 2011 | 12:53 am
I understand that, Ken. I recognize why it’s so easy for someone with homosexual desires to adopt the homosexualist political identity. It can be very comforting to feel solidarity as a member of an oppressed class, especially so when the fellow members of that class encourage you to view behaviors that you have felt ashamed of as healthy and good. Moreover, as the gay rights movement has adopted the rhetoric and style of the racial civil rights movement, its participants can feel that they are engaged in a cause as righteous and uplifting as that movement was in its best moments.
Constructing a gay identity can be very alluring for these reasons, as well as others.
May 27th, 2011 | 3:55 am
More generally, as the Ramsay Colloquium put it, back in March 1994:
“Many in our society – both straight and gay – also contend that what people do sexually is entirely a private matter and no one’s business but their own. The form this claim takes is often puzzling to many people – and rightly so. For what were once considered private acts are now highly publicized, while, for the same acts, public privilege is claimed because they are private. What is confusedly at work here is an extreme individualism, a claim for autonomy so extreme that it must undercut the common good.”
May 27th, 2011 | 8:30 am
Ethan, you put it well, but that same dynamic operates on the Religious Right. Members of the RR love to feel like victims, and often show the same antagonism towards their enemies as gays do to them.
May 27th, 2011 | 9:21 am
Michael PS, On that I most certainly agree.
May 27th, 2011 | 6:00 pm
Ethan,
I always laugh when I hear those language peculiarities that identify one as part of the political movement to deny gay people the same rights they cherish for themselves. For example, “homosexualist” is a term used only by the most extreme anti-gay activists. So while you are, of course, free to use any language you like, be aware that it does reveal a great deal about your motivations, affiliations, and approach to civil liberty.
But let’s put our cards on the table, Mr. Kincaid. You don’t think homosexual behavior is wrong,
Almost. I think that sexual behavior can be right or wrong depending on how it is implemented. Abusive, degrading or objectifying sex is, I believe, wrong; so I would find Solomon’s sexual encounters with his many wives to be immoral. On the other hand, I don’t believe that sexual expression within the confines of a committed loving same-sex relationship to be wrong.
and you think that traditional Christian sexual ethics are corrupt.
No, not at all.
I think that some people have a rather distorted perspective on sexuality that is corrupted. For example, those all fired up about banning gay folks from adopting haven’t gotten fired up about banning prostitutes. And none of the ‘family groups’ that spend millions every year to ban people from (for example) claiming the body of their partner from the morgue (and yes, the Christian Rhode Island Governor actually vetoed that law last year) don’t seem overly concerned about the marriage rights of three four and five times divorces straight people. Or at least, not enough to distribute a single petition.
So “traditional Christian sexual ethics” at times seems to be corrupted in focus.
But as to how they got there… nope, that is honestly. While I don’t think the Clobber Passages mean what you think they mean, I don’t fault people for that understanding.
Do you think there is a way for Evangelical schools like Wheaton to be compassionate and loving of homosexual students without abandoning their beliefs about sexual ethics?
Of course.
How would Wheaton go about treating a student that began to question the Trinity? What if they began to suspect that the teachings of, say, the United Pentecostal Church was correct on the Godhead?
Well, I doubt it would involve expulsion.
But truly, what is a bigger issue theologically? Surely the Trinity is more important. Or Baptism. Or, here’s a biggie, transfiguration. Or the worst of all, what if a student began to think that the Pope truly is the Vicar of Christ who is infallible on matters of doctrine; THAT is contrary to everything Wheaton stands for.
Yet they could still show love. And not the “hate the sin” kind.
Out of curiosity, what sort of sexual ethics could a Christian college adhere to that would be acceptable to you? What sexual behaviors and beliefs could reasonably be grounds for expulsion?
I think that, of course, a Christian college can set any standards that it likes. But it really shouldn’t pretend that it provides a loving and supportive environment to gay students if, indeed, it does not.
In other words, believe what you like and do what you like, but don’t lie about it.
The problem arises when decent folks like Dr. Jone want to be loving and supportive, but also feel obligated to ‘fight the homosexual agenda’. And that latter piece tends to take on higher importance than the first.
To be specific, I would say have the same rules for unmarried students regardless of orientation or identity. If straight kids can’t hold hands, then neither can gay kids. And, of course, sex is out of the question for all of them.
If, however, gay kids can’t even go on a coffee date while straight kids can kiss, well then it isn’t really behavior that you are objecting to, but the folks who are doing it.
I imagine that your response is that if a same-sex attracted kid goes on a coffee date with someone of the same sex then they are identifying with their homosexuality and ANY action that recognized same-sex attraction is sin.
And that’s when I begin to see the sexual ethic as corrupt.
You also asked about belief. Maybe it’s because my upbringing was in a pentecostal church that was (then) still considered a little bit outside the norm, but theological rigidity has never seemed to me to be a virtue.
And if we are going to expel kids for what they believe about sexuality based on their own understanding of scripture considering context, culture and language, then I wonder whether one places higher value on conformity and rigidity than on thought.
But hey, “expel the guy who doesn’t agree” is a perfectly fine policy. Provided, of course, that you don’t care in the slightest about how you treat that guy.
And I think that Dr. Jones does care. And I think he’ll eventually see that ‘care and support’ and demands for orthodoxy don’t go hand in hand.
That approach doesn’t work on any other matters of humanity or theology, so some day it’ll be dropped here as well.
May 27th, 2011 | 6:26 pm
It is the pro-homosexual movement that insists that having homosexual desires gives a person an inherent political identity as an aggrieved class.
Ken got it: gay people didn’t define the identity, it was thrust upon them. Just as Irish ancestry is a much stronger identity affiliation in England than it is in, say, California because of other people and their behaviors, so to is sexual orientation an identity that was created to a very large extent by the political actions of others. Gay people come from all communities and probably would identify the same as their siblings (Irish American, a Southerner, a Methodist, a Republican, etc.) if they had not been banned from gov’t employment, forbidden to be teachers, denied hospital visitation, had their kids taken from them, been jailed, denounce, ran out of town, had their names put in the papers, been called every name in the book, been disowned, been kicked out of their home while they were still kids (LA Police believe that 1/4 of LA’s street kids were thrown out of their home for being gay), and on and on. At some point folks say “hey, it’s people like me that they are doing that awful thing to. If I don’t get involved, I might be next”.
In other words, if you passed the same laws against sinister people (left-handies), based on all the times that the Bible extols the right hand and calls the left hand evil (look ‘em up some time), then we’d be having the same discussion about the political identity of left-handed folk.
It can be very comforting to feel solidarity as a member of an oppressed class,
Yes, especially if you are truly being oppressed.
But, that doesn’t change reality either: gay people are a distinct sub-demographic. There have throughout the entire recorded history of man been those who did not conform to the conservative Christian sexual ethic. Mostly we know about them because of their contributions. (and, though this will not go unchallenged, the rather small percentage of people who lived throughout history in a manner that suggests a self-awareness of their own same-sex attractions has certainly contributed well beyond their demographic. If you want to be amused, look to the sciences and arts and those men called “The Father of …”.)
May 27th, 2011 | 6:33 pm
Just as one example… the thing you’re typing on, well it’s based on an idea by a guy named Alan Turing (and thus he’s The Father of Computer Science). The earliest versions were call Turing Machines.
Oh, and Turing is also the guy who cracked the German code in WWII. There are only a handful of people of whom it could be said that if it wasn’t for him, we would have lost the war. He’s one.
And England was so grateful that when they found out he was gay the have him a dishonorable discharge and injected him with hormones to “cure his homosexual behavior” as an alternative to jail. He committed suicide.
May 27th, 2011 | 6:47 pm
Michael PS
Many in our society – both straight and gay – also contend that what people do sexually is entirely a private matter and no one’s business but their own.
That is an interesting… but completely false… argument.
Gay people are not, generally, persecuted for what they do in their bedroom. The sex act is almost incidental. No one really knows what you’re doing or not doing.
What gay people are persecuted for is for daring to no longer believe that they should feel shame. For rejecting the “conservative Christian sexual ethic.” As long as gay folks agreed with you that we were “intrinsically disordered” then we were little threat.
That is when those gay people who had no sex life whatsoever became “homosexualists”. That is when those who abstain from sexual behavior outside of a committed long-term relationship became “radical militant homosexual activists.”
That is why Wolfe lived in fear. Because today’s evangelical Christian world holds no space for those who dare disagree about homosexuality.
May 27th, 2011 | 9:54 pm
There have throughout the entire recorded history of man been those who did not conform to the conservative Christian sexual ethic.
The same could be said of every other type of sexual deviant.
By that argument, having any sexual ethics at all is “oppression”.
Are you prepared to treat a father-daughter relationship as equal to a marriage? I’m not.
May 28th, 2011 | 12:23 am
Timothy,
I haven’t gone back and reread your earlier posts, but the three you wrote in the 6 o’clock hour were eloquent, well-argued, and exactly right.
May 28th, 2011 | 8:10 am
Timothy Kincaid
You do have a point.
The laws against blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were swept away, everywhere that French arms gave a code of laws to a continent and restored the concept of citizenship to civilisation and sodomy (so long as public decency was not affronted) ceased to be the concern of the state.
However, in the century following, “homosexuality” became a subject of intense study and debate, initiated by physicians and the popularisers of medical ideas.
Michel Foucault described this process, with his usual mordant wit, when he said:
“Sodomy, that of the old civil and canon laws, was a type of forbidden action. The perpetrator was a mere juridical subject. The homosexual of the 19th century became a personality, with a past, a history, a childhood, a character, a lifestyle; a morphology also, with an inquisitive anatomy and, perhaps, a mysterious physiology. Nothing of what he is escapes his sexuality. He is consubstantial with it, less as an habitual sin than a unique nature… Sodomy was a lapse, homosexuality was a type.” [Histoire de la sexualité – My translation]
It is worth noting that most of the proponents of these theories were materialists. Moral theologians adhered to the old model.
Now the “Gay Movement” is, not so much a reaction to, as the mirror-image of, this idea.
So, too, in the area of sexual morality more generally, conduct which claims immunity from public interference, on the grounds that it belongs exclusively to the private sphere is asserting claims to public accommodation and recognition. The right to legal tolerance, now of two centuries’ standing, has become a demand for legally-enforced social acceptance; in other words, a demand for legal intrusion into the private sphere, to defend private choices, precisely because they are no one else’s business. Surely, this is a paradox.
May 31st, 2011 | 3:00 pm
Mr. Kincaid, you are quite adept at twisting my words to suit your own purposes. I have repeatedly stated, with complete clarity, that I reject the assignment of homosexual identity to those who have same-sex desires. It is you who are identifying persons with homosexual desires as a monolithic political class, not me.
It is also you who are asserting that Wheaton and schools like it cannot both love and respect students with same-sex desires and expel them if their theological opinions and advocacy violate orthodoxy (and no, there is a vastly more significant difference between pro-homosexualism and traditional Christian sexual ethics than there is between Protestantism and Catholicism).
My parallel to pornography, which you seem too fearful to address, sums it up completely.
As much as you wish to twist and deny it, the universal Christian tradition is that sex between a married husband and wife is the only moral form of sexual relations, and everything else is a perversion and a sin. If you deny this, you are in rebellion against the Christian faith. A courageous man would accept this and rebel openly. Only a coward or a fool would continue to claim that he was a faithful Christian.
May 31st, 2011 | 3:14 pm
As much as you wish to twist and deny it, the universal Christian tradition is that sex between a married husband and wife is the only moral form of sexual relations, and everything else is a perversion and a sin.
I just wish they would adopt the same attitude toward all the appetites.
Only food that actually has nutritive value is moral, darnit….anything that is bright blue and made up primarily of chemicals should be classified as a sin.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact