Tags
admissions, admissions department, alumnus, anderson university, AU, au alumni, bisexual, CCCU, christian, Christianity, church of god, civil rights, class of 03, class of 2003, coalition for christian colleges and universities, dorothy day, gay, gay rights, god, homosexual, homosexuality, jesus, jesus christ, justice, kkk, lesbian, lgbt, lgbtq, mahatma gandhi, march, martin luther king, martin luther king jr, mlk, non-violent resistors, nonviolent resistors, oscar romero, queer, Religion, transgender, transsexual
President James L. Edwards,
As an alumnus, former staff member, donor, and lover of Anderson University, I felt an imperative to convey to you my thoughts regarding AU’s involvement in issues of civil rights.
As a student I can recall numerous instances in which you spoke about your participation in the Civil Rights march as an AU student. I commend you for such brave action. I hold a great deal of respect for you and for all who struggled in solidarity with our black sisters and brothers during that era of our nation’s history. I respect your willingness to stand for what you knew in your heart was the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences. I believe that standing against injustice is a moral imperative that we all bear, as Christians and as human beings.
Having studied the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero and other great non-violent resistors, one commonality that they all share is a willingness to stand for what they believe is right regardless of any consequences. Oftentimes these consequences are serious, as the tragic ends of King and Gandhi clearly illustrate. Yet, their resolve and commitment to justice have inspired billions around the world for decades after their deaths.
I believe that we face another opportunity to stand in solidarity with millions who have been denied basic civil rights. Our nation has a well-documented history of denying rights to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers.
Thirty years from now, what will AU’s record show on this issue? Will it show that our students, faculty and staff took bold steps to advocate for LGBTQ rights? Or will it indicate a reluctance similar to that of the white moderates whom King so sharply criticized?
I understand that posturing an open and accepting attitude towards queer sexuality would have sweeping and fundamental implications to the culture of our school. It would mean reevaluating how our Admissions department reaches out to students. It would mean readjusting our messages to the concerned parents of prospective students. It would have implications on who we cultivate as donors. It would affect our accreditation with the CCCU. Most significantly, it would seriously alter our relationship with the Church of God. These are serious consequences, and such decisions should not be made lightly.
Nevertheless, the right thing to do should not be avoided because of consequences. If I have learned anything through studying the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., it is that we must stand on the side of justice regardless of the cost, and we must have faith that God will see us through. As dire as these consequences may temporarily be, do they outweigh the risk of being remembered like the white moderates whom King considered almost more of a stumbling block than the KKK?
Those who struggled and suffered during the Civil Rights movement are celebrated and revered. Decades from now, I want my alma mater to be remembered in this way. I do not want it to be said of AU that we preferred “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” If AU is to continue to be remembered for it’s bold participation in fighting for justice and civil rights, we must stand with our LGBTQ sisters and brothers.
Do not take the cowardly route of sidestepping the issue by citing concerns of money, recruitment, accreditation and church relations.
Someday when my children ask me what kind of place Anderson University is, I want to be able to tell them about more than a beautiful campus with friendly people. I want to recall stories of brave and bold actions taken across decades. I want to tell them that AU has a long, proud history of standing for civil rights. I want to tell them that AU is more than an academic institution; it is a place that stands for justice.
David Hynds
Class of 2003
here just seems to be one major problem with that. Is your interpretation correct? The standard for adopting your view seems to be does it marginalize people. This is wrong. The question is – what is biblically true? All sinners are called to repent of their sin and follow Jesus Christ, whether you are gay, a liar, and adulterer. Is it then wrong … See Moreto say that telling an adulterer to stop committing adultery is sin? Is it wrong to tell a child molester that his desires are wrong? Well that seems awfully oppressive? God made them that way right? No, all of us have to put off sin. Show me one verse where homosexuality is commended or held up as a standard in the Bible. Strict biblical exegesis will not allow that one bit. It is sad to see that the liberalism of Anderson University has so affected you as well. I pray brother that you will repent and believe the scriptures. You are on a slipperly slope that I believe will lead to apostasy and all kinds of heresy.
Is my interpretation correct? I believe it is. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say that I know my interpretation is correct. However, I’ve heard respected Biblical scholars make convincing arguments to support my interpretation.
My purpose in this letter is not to debate with the leadership of AU whether or not homosexuality is moral. My purpose in this letter is to urge the leadership of AU to act with integrity. When asked whether they think homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, I’ve often heard members of AU leadership dodge the question by citing the difficulties associated with changing the policy. I can think of no instances in which the leadership clearly denied that homosexuality is acceptable. This causes me to suspect that many in the leadership are enforcing a policy which they don’t believe in because of the perceived ramifications of changing that policy.
This letter is a call for integrity. If they believe homosexuality is immoral, then I want them to state that explicitly, so that we may discuss it. If not, then AU lacks integrity for failing to act in accordance with its beliefs. This is what I’m attempting to call out.
Yes, that being said. It is morally wrong. Please explain to me exegetically how homosexuality in your view is correct from a biblical persepective. The burden of proof is on the liberal scholars for this reason: There are clear prohibiting passages. Also, there are no verses where homosexuality is commended as an acceptable lifestyle or shown as normative or acceptable in scripture. Now I have heard some of the liberal argument and the hermenenutical dances and games that have to be played to get to that view are clearly laughable. Davo there are reputable scholars that believe that Jesus is not God and that deny the essentials of the Christian faith. This issue does not at all seem to be up for debate. It seems that in an effort to be more cultural sensitive and less biblically sensitive you are adopting this view. I urge you to repent.
Davo,
I graduated from AU in 2006 and I have to say that I agree with Jason. The question of whether homosexuality is Biblically moral is the only thing that determines how AU can act with integrity. If the Bible explicitly prohibits it multiple times in both testaments (it does), then “integrity” would demand that AU’s policies reflect the same. You talk grandly of civil rights and justice as if these things matter, while saying that the Bible’s opinion of homosexuality itself does not matter. I think you have your priorities reversed.
Even if you don’t, the question of the Bible vis a vis homosexuality is at the absolute center of everything you’re trying to prove. If God’s plan involves one man and one woman becoming one flesh, then any other policy would be the opposite of integrity, appeasing man’s fallen opinions of civil rights and justice instead of standing for God’s truth. You can’t answer the question of acting integrity without deciding what principles you’re trying to have integrity toward.
“My purpose in this letter is to urge the leadership of AU to act with integrity.”
Integrity by what standard? Hopefully, they choose to stand on God’s word rather than society’s definition of integrity.
“I respect your willingness to stand for what you knew in your heart was the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences. I believe that standing against injustice is a moral imperative that we all bear, as Christians and as human beings.”
You equate “the right thing to do” with “standing against injustice” in the next statement. The question is, from what standard do we define “injustice”? The Bible offer’s the only standard as culture and a plurality of society are flippant and changing, unlike God’s standards.
“Having studied the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero…” Are any of these people Christians? Are they applauded for their adherence to Biblical integrity or are they revered by the world? The Bible says that if the world loves you, there’s a problem. The world hated Jesus and they will hate His followers.
“I believe that we face another opportunity to stand in solidarity with millions who have been denied basic civil rights.” How have they (LGBTQ) been denied “basic civil rights”? They can own property, have gainful employment, enjoy public education, receive health care, benefit from security provided by local law enforcement and national security. They can even marry a person of the opposite sex. As a society, laws are established to enforce a code of acceptable conduct based on standards. Thieves are prohibited from stealing, even if they were born with a disposition towards such behavior. The question becomes, upon what standards are the moral laws founded and derived? If it’s simply based on popular opinion or a vocal minority, then there really is no standard. It’s a moving target. What happens when society says “rape is not that bad – it’s probably the woman’s fault for enticing the man.”? Are the members of NAMBLA denied their basic civil rights because of outdated standards that haven’t changed with the times? They can’t help that they were born with a disposition towards certain behavior. They must be victims, too. Maybe the folks at AU want to march for them regardless of the consequences.
As soon as you deviate from an unchanging standard, this is where it leads. It’s a slippery slope and it leans away from God.
Are you kidding? Is Martin Luther King a Christian? Are you in third grade?
Martin Luther King denied many of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. He did not believe in the resurrection or the Jesus was God. So I dont think he was a Chrstian at all. DO some research
I fully agree Jim.
To begin with, the word “homosexuality” didn’t exist until several centuries ago. This means that any time that you read “homosexual” in the Bible, our modern definition isn’t the most accurate definition for the word used in the original Greek. Often, the word translated “homosexual” is the word used for a male prostitute who works in the temple of Greek deities. It seems more likely that many of the NT warnings against “homosexuality” were actually warnings against engaging with prostitutes at Greek temples. In actuality, when we interpret such texts to argue that homosexuality is a sin, we are reading our own culture and assumptions into the text. Classic isogesis.
Secondly, most of the other NT references address men in some position of authority having sex with subordinate young boys, often in a teacher-pupil setting. The issue here is one of informed consent. Often the boys were coerced into such sexual activity. Coercion aside, most societies that I’m aware of don’t consider the consent of a child as legally valid.
Finally, the majority OT prohibitions of such activity are found in the books of the law. I’m making an assumption here, but I’m guessing that most Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin don’t live like Hasidic Jews. Find me one that does, and I’ll discuss the issue with them.
As for Sodom and Gramorrah, I’ve heard many scholars (both liberal and evangelical conservative) argue that the real sin of these cities was inhospitality and violence toward their vulnerable visitors. This is supported in other OT references to the devastation of the cities as chronicled in Genesis.
Davo, I believe that this intrepretation is flawed. How about Romans Chapter 1 when homosexuality is seen as an act of God’s judgement where he gives me over to the UNNatural desires to be with another man. This is evidence of depravity and God’s wrath. The clear teaching of the text is that the natural God honoring desire is for a man to be with another women. What do you do with that verse? I would also say you have read cultural assumptions in your intrepreation. There are no intrepretative clues that in the TEXT that support your view of male prostittes. You want to try to sound scholarly and go back and try to re-intrepret what the verse means. The only acceptable standard in scripture held up is one man and one women. Therefore a basic principle of hermeneutics is we use the analogy of faith which says we intrepret scripture with scripture. We dont intrepret scripture with culture. And I would argue the CLEAR standard is one man and one women. Show me where any other pattern is legitmized in scripture. Therefore I would argue that my intrepretation is correct because you have NO verses that affirm your view. You are using negative passages to say it doesnt mean a prohibition on homosexuality. Show me exegetically in your view where this lifestyle is affirmed. The problem is you cannot.
Here are some scholarly works and quotes from John MacArthur and other scholars on the greek word for homosexuality and Paul’s usage.
In 1 Tim 1:9-10, Paul denounces “immoral men and homosexuals” as among
those who are “lawless and rebellious” and “contrary to sound teaching.”10 The word
he uses for homosexuals, arsenokoitai, literally means “males in the marriage b ed,”
and “seems to have been coined using the terminology of LXX Lev 18:22 [and 20:13.”11 The term underscores the fact that Paul viewed any homosexual acts as a
sinful perversion, as Knight explains:
The word Paul uses is composed of two components. . . . The former is the specific word
for male [arsein] with “strong emphasis on sex” (BAGD). The latter means generally
“bed” and is a euphemism for sexual intercourse (BAGD). The word does not refer, as
some writers have alleged, only to sex with young boys or to male homosexual prostitutes,
but simply to homosexuality itself (so Paul explicitly in Rom. 1:26, 27 . . .). Paul writes
elsewhere that the consequence for continued and unrepentant involvement in this, and
other sins listed here, is exclusion from the kingdom of God and that deliverance from
this, and the other sins, is an integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord through the
power of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 6:9-11).12
This whole issue is wearing me out. I know where I stand and what I believe when it comes to homosexuality. And you know where you stand. No matter what we believe, whether we think it a sin or not, the heart of the matter is whether we choose to live as Jesus chose to live. Loving and accepting the sinner. I’m not sure anyone really knows what that looks like, but I have a feeling it has a lot less to do with putting a label on those who choose to live differently than yourself and a lot more to do with having them over to dinner parties and hanging out with them by the water well.
As for this part… “Having studied the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Oscar Romero…” “Are any of these people Christians?” I ask, does it matter???? Many of those revolutionaries were in active pursuit of non-violent resistance against oppressors, very much like Jesus, seeking justice for those unable or too scared to seek it for themselves. Those revolutionaries lived more closely in line with Jesus’ teachings than most people who claim Christianity.
Let’s go back to the part where Davo says, “the word “homosexuality” didn’t exist until several centuries ago. This means that any time that you read “homosexual” in the Bible, our modern definition isn’t the most accurate definition for the word used in the original Greek.” This is true, any Biblical scholar will tell you so. So tell me, why is it that you keep recalling “Biblical homosexual” references, when, in fact, there are none?
Also, if you ONLY use Biblical text to interpret Biblical text, you’re in some deep shit, man. “There are no intrepretative clues that in the TEXT that support your view of male prostittes.” DUH. There are, however, other texts and architectural evidences that suggest otherwise, sir. I would like to some verification that Noah’s arc was real and that Jonah got swallowed by a whale, but I’m not seeing any of that proof. Also, please, show me the cross Jesus died on. K, thanks.
Please think about what you are trying to argue. You are not doing a very good job, you sure as hell don’t have me convinced. You talk about homosexuality like all it is is sexual intercourse. As a straight person, is that how you would define yourself? By who it is with which you are banging? By all means, please show me a passage that says it is wrong for a man to show preferential love to another man, or a woman to fall in love with another woman. If you are telling me that sexual preference is defined by sexual acts, then that must mean I am a Christian because I go to church every Sunday, bake a pie for the pie auction, and eat the communion bread every week. One of Jesus’ biggest hindrances was complacency and the unwillingness to change what one believes. I for one am glad the early Christians got the hint and we don’t have to live by silly rules like this one in Exodus: “And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.”
PLEASE remember to keep an open mind. Also, please remember the heart of Davo’s letter: a call for integrity. One last thing… Please do not make statements like this, “As soon as you deviate from an unchanging standard, this is where it leads. It’s a slippery slope and it leans away from God.” You are not qualified… NO ONE is qualified to say so ‘matter of fact’-like what leans away from God.
Two last things Jesus wants you to know: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Would you want to live in the closet for fear of disparagement? ESPECIALLY on a “Christian” campus? I implore you to see reason, understanding and love.
There is so much wrong with this I dont even know where to start. First off I dont think Jesus would use course language. Scripture clearly forbids that. I would argue that the language you used is repulsive and is not appropriate for Christian discussion. It is most helpful to stick to the issues as oppossed to using shock value language. But I dont know maybe you are not a Christian.
Secondly, it matters everything that those guys were not Christians. That is everything. Your statement is incomprehensible to me. If they were not Christians why should we look to them as models. They were God hating rebels – why would I base my life off of their principles?
Also if you are protestant you will have heard of a phrase called Sola Scriptura. I am sorry but the reformers gave us a great hermeneutical principle called the anology of the faith. The problem is there is no support BIBLICALLY for this weak understanding of the scripture. Liberals want to re-intrpret everything. God said in the old testatment that laying with a man is an abomination. When did that change? I suppose now he is ok with it. WEAK. The new testament show us with its prohibitive passages in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians, and in 1 Tim that his view on it has not changed. Your view may have but biblically you are going to have trouble refuting the prohibitve passages as well as then presenting a positive case for gay marriage and gay relationships. You wont be able to do that. There is no biblical support.
You seem to have a very low view of the Word of God which would seem to evidence that you are not a Christian. Therefore I think it would be difficult to convince you. If the Bible is not your standard then you can beleive any doctrine. I urge you if you are not a Christian to recognize that you are a sinner to turn from your sin and trust Christ as your only hope for salvation.
Try not to feel too offended, Jethi. When I knew Jason, he prided himself for his extremely loose and inventive interpretation of “Love your neighbor.” I haven’t hung out with him in a while, but I would guess that not much has changed. He also questioned the validity of anyone’s faith unless their faith agreed exactly with his. Take it with a grain of salt.
David married several wives at once. In the case of Bathsheba, David raped Bathsheba, murdered her husband, then married her. Nathan (the prophet speaking on behalf of God) chastised him for the rape and murder, not a second marriage. If God had a problem with polygamy, why wasn’t that voiced via Nathan? Clearly, “one man, one woman” isn’t the only acceptable form of marriage.
You are right that there are no verses in the Bible that openly support homosexuality. (Although, I’ve heard that the language used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan is the same as that used to describe marriage commitments). There are also no verses that openly condemn slavery or genocide. In fact, there are dozens of verses which seemingly condone them. Would you argue slavery and genocide are Godly?
Davo what are you referring to with love your neighbor? What do you think that means?
Very interesting. I question someone’s faith if they dont believe in the clear Gospel. What is your understanding of the Gospel? Is it exclusive? Davo, do people go to hell? What was the cross all about? Is everyone right? Of course to say someone is wrong means I am judgemental and legalistic. Of course right. Is this better – “All roads lead to God”. Now everyone will like me and I have a culturally relevant message.
I think pologamy was not an acceptable lifestyle. I think it evidenced david’s sin. But if you want to hold to pologamy go for it bro. I think Jesus and the Apostles held up God’s standard of one man one women.
The David and Jonathan thing is weak and there is no evidence that they had sex or were gay. That is a hermenutic of speculation.
Davo, the problem with your last statement is this. I can show you verses that would show us that slavery and genocide are wrong. There are clear biblical teaching that tells us they are wrong.
But what does this have to do with homosexuality? There are passages that condemn homosexuality. There are very clear ones. On top of that there are no passages that affirm homosexual relations. So it seems that you are coming to the bible wanting to make homosexuality ok and therfore are trying to make the Bible say something that is not there. If you are honest, is there a presupposition that you are bringing to the text so that you can make this ok?
Let me be clear. I dont think homosexuality is the unpardonable sin or worse than other sins. It is sin. The homosexual is no worse than any other sinner. I think the evangelical church has made that sin out to be worse than others and I dont agree with that. My church would welcome a repenting homosexual freely in our church.
He would be loved and embraced and we would seek to help him walk in freedom just like everyone else who struggles with sin in the church. (which is all of us I might add). But we are not marginalizing him to tell him he must repent of that. We all have to put off sin and repent. I just think you are having to reach so hard to try to come up with this view namely because it is not biblical.
Again, there are no verses in the Bible which explicitly condemn slavery or genocide, just as there are no verses in the Bible which explicitly condone homosexuality. We can extrapolate that slavery and genocide are immoral using other Biblical texts. However, to do so, we must reinterpret passages which condone or at the very least are complicit with slavery and genocide. The same is possible with homosexuality.
I’ll admit that I’m bringing a presupposition to the text. I believe everyone does this, and to deny it would be self-deception. You, also, are bringing presuppositions to the text. If this is the reality, however, there must be a framework for interpreting the text that accounts for these presuppositions. I’ll explain the framework I use and give examples. If my experience or system of morality conflicts with the Bible, I attempt to reconcile the two. In order to do so, several outcomes frequently occur. 1) I reexamine my experiences and, after some reflection, understand them in a new way which is congruent with what I understand the Bible to be saying. 2) I revise my system of morality to be more congruent with my understanding of the Bible. 3) I discover that my interpretation of the the Biblical passage was incomplete, and an alternate interpretation makes more sense and is congruous with my experience or system of morality.
In the case of slavery, for example, my system of morality contradicted passages where the Bible seemingly condoned slavery. After studying the text and its context more thoroughly, I learned about an alternate interpretation which actually seemed to have more evidence to support it than my original interpretation and did not contradict my system of morality.
A similar result occurred on the subject of homosexuality. For years I held the view that it was sin. Yet this view conflicted with my personal experiences as I befriended numerous gay men and lesbians. Still, I could not reconcile my experiences with what I read in the Bible, so I gave the Bible the benefit of the doubt and adopted the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach. Eventually, I encountered convincing arguments (which I have briefly and incompletely rehashed above) which support an alternate interpretation, which allows the two to be reconciled. I didn’t accept these arguments because they were more “fashionable” or more “culturally relevant.” You guessed incorrectly at my motives. I accepted them because they made more sense to me.
If you disagree with the method of my interpretive framework, explain to me how genocide and slavery could be immoral.
“Secondly, it matters everything that those guys were not Christians. That is everything. Your statement is incomprehensible to me. If they were not Christians why should we look to them as models. They were God hating rebels – why would I base my life off of their principles?”
Seriously you are calling MLK, Dorthy Day, Mahatma Gandhi and Oscar Ramero God hating rebels!? That is possibly one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. Oscar Ramero was assassinated while performing mass. MAYBE MAYBE you could say by your definition that they are not Christians, fine. But God hating rebels!? REALLY!?
I’m not sure what you mean by “course” language. Could you please define that?
If the language I used was your biggest concern with what I typed, then I’m pretty sure this whole thing may just be a lost cause.
“You seem to have a very low view of the Word of God which would seem to evidence that you are not a Christian…I urge you if you are not a Christian to recognize that you are a sinner to turn from your sin and trust Christ as your only hope for salvation.” I’m not sure what to say to this. Please do not make assumptions about me. You do not know me.
“Is this better – “All roads lead to God”. Now everyone will like me and I have a culturally relevant message.” The problem for me is the fact that statements like this are even being made about God. We don’t know. No one knows. We can not be so matter-of-fact when it comes to any language about God. To do so runs the risk of making false claims, and I’m not sure that is what God wants of us.
Yea… not going to answer. That is what I thought.
I’m not even sure one could surmise that these people weren’t Christians. I would also like to know when assassination = love. With all due respect, Your argument moot. Archbishop Romero stood against the government, and was gunned down. Rev. King stood against a white society, and instead of fighting he chose to love, and was shot to death. Ghandi spoke out against a British Imperialistic rule that was wreaking havoc against the Indian people. He was shot. Although he was Hindu, he loved Jesus, and modeled his life after him (one can check biographies to confirm this statement).
Mr. Person, you seem to have an insatiable need to be right. At the same time, I was curious why you feel it reasonable and right to question someone’s faith, when you do not have the authority to do so. I hope that by your critique you actually love your neighbor as opposed to condemning them. Your argument of loving one’s neighbor implies a need for tough love, or loving some of your neighbors and roughing up neighbors that disagree with you. And how does one observe the fruits of the spirit, being love, patience, kindness, gentleness, etc. Your argument excludes these to address correctness.
Davo,
I stand with you in support of the dignity of individuals, regardless of their sexuality. That said, I have very little faith in the ability of institutions to change, particularly those founded on religious principles. Change will come, but I doubt it will come through the church or church-related institutions. It will come by way of those individuals like Gandhi, like MLK, who choose to stand with the disenfranchised. Even so, I applaud your efforts in writing this letter.
-Randy
Pingback: Two years of Amanti « Amanti