Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Pulse: Myths in Pre-Mature Resolution (A Guest Post by Jordan Nakamura)

Before all else, I’d like to respond to the prompt at face value: hands down, the “topic our generation will deal with the most” is homosexuality and LGBTQ rights. It is what has been elected as the cultural question of the age, in the United States at least. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue myself, I think it’s important to talk about it, and i’m glad that we are. I especially hope that people who identify as Christians will continue to begin a healthy discourse. We have handled it horribly for a long time, one response among many inexcusable ones being the whole “if you just don’t talk about it, it’ll go away” charade. It’s often painfully obvious that there is still a long way for Christian communities to go. But for the most part, I’d much rather see people making some mistakes in the same room trying to reconcile than to see them staying comfortably worlds apart, safe in their festering assumptions.

But as for what I think is the most important, other issues come to mind as better candidates. To clarify, I mean better candidates than legalizing gay marriage, not evasive action and advocacy against homophobic violence, which is about as important as anything else I can think of. Basically I’m going to attest that any “third world issue” is more important than “first world issues.” A large number of these third world issues stem from racism, and while racism to some might sound like a simple pitfall to avoid, even black toddlers in the States will pick a white doll over a black one. In light of this, it becomes important to investigate who our white leaders are picking to assist and understand before aiding or bombing, because the results get to be as serious as life and death. At the end of the day, it’s still important in this age to investigate exactly why it was Japan and Asians that were bombed, and not Germany and white people. It is our generation that needs to look at these things to grapple with present issues: why black unarmed teens are still being shot and why nobody covers the story, and why I have seen white co-workers walk in completely blazed on pot and not get a second look for it. In this way, these third world issues of racism and even sexism become the issues of our generation in the first world, but go unacknowledged as relevant or even existent, let alone our onus. This is why I’d argue that issues of racism and sexism in any “world” is a priority. It is more important that people not die because of preventable causes than it is that gay marriage is legalized. That might piss people off, but I stand by it, as do I stand by my belief that gay marriage should be allowed. But people who compare movements of LGBTQ rights to the Black Civil Rights movement simply have not looked at history with clarity or respect. I’m not trying to pit one issue against the other. Disproportionate death by AIDS in the LGBTQ community is a tragedy, and like anyone, I hope a cure is found.
but I also hope that we work towards remedying the effects and occurrence of disproportionate murder and captivity of black skinned human beings, which has been going on a lot longer than AIDS existed. Again though, the problem is when people start pretending like this ancient issue is covered, and in the current “Age of Obama,” the post-racial narrative is rampant and sets the stage for the marginalization of these issues.

Let’s examine some of our culture for a minute, the culture that predicates this very post as almost certainly being read from a glowing computer screen: Due to highly accelerated networking, information has completely changed in nature and shape. Capitalism and consumerism have been altered. Young people like myself are not good at imagining a world before this new order, let alone how something like commerce used to run. What most people in our generation will acknowledge is that images are everywhere, at a constant inundating rate. Given this, we might conclude that issues of race and gender are perhaps more relevant today than ever before, because never have our ideas of them been so easily malleable, the icons of these ideas so easily created and spread, nor their effects so easily covered up. By nature, race and gender are sort of airy. For example, even at the genetic level, I have no more chance of being more genetically similar to another Japanese person than I do to a Norwegian person. Despite this, race is a phenomenon that has been called into being. It is real because the effects are real, but there is no locus in object. Sex and ethnicity, of course, are very real in the sense that they’re biologically measurable, and are objective. The mechanics of how images and narratives work in the modern world have mutated, and these changes need to be addressed in addition to inherited systemic problems. 


The idea that we are living in a “post-racial age” is also a major factor. This idea is widely accepted as common sense: the notion that we no longer need to deal with issues of race because it is a solved or moot issue. Race being removed from public consciousness contributes to the emphasis on gender. Therefore, any sociological energy that the public has is given to LGBTQ concerns. Race, once again is marginalized, due to the myth that racial marginalization is a checked off item on the humanitarian To-Do list of history. Some of this has to do with an institutionalized historical slant towards a version of history that sterilizes the Black Civil Rights movement, making it out to be a safe topic that never reaches the present. Some of it has to do with the fact that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Again, I want to stress that I don’t want to eclipse one cause with another. It’s precisely that motivation that I re-emphasize race which I think has certainly been eclipsed by other issues. My definition of more important reads as “more important to reassess the importance of.” The effects of racism in America are rampant, widespread, and too often fatal, and few people realize that it is even an issue anymore, whereas legalizing gay marriage is important in the public eye to the point of it being hip. It’s a lot harder to make a mass-profile picture icon about generations of unintentional but destructive microaggressions, and so it doesn’t happen. The quote about white privilege isn’t going to get several thousand shares on tumblr, like the one on gay marriage will. Understandable I suppose, but what isn’t okay is how the issue then drops off the map because it isn’t recognized in pop culture, politics, and daily interactions.

Hopefully, the church will realize that followers of Christ should be running with the vanguard in any true societal brokenness, yearning and fighting for justice and entering into the pain.
I do not have the time here to elaborate on why I have become convinced that race and marginalized issues are at the forefront of cultural battles to be stationed within, but I trust readers can continue to investigate for themselves. But I must address the prompt which asks what issue is the most important for our “Christian generation.” Obviously, anyone can fight for racial justice or women’s rights or anything else, believing in God is not a requirement. Sadly, the bulk of the Western Christian population has more or less been content to leave most of these fights to people who do not identify as Christians. But I want to talk a bit about something that is a big question for many in “the church” which probably isn’t for others outside of it. I’m going to refer to this as the “weird supernatural” spiritual gifts, or “miracle work” in the Holy Spirit. 


Jordan Nakamura can be found via the Twittersphere, and on the rest of the Interwebs.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Pulse: Homosexuality (A Guest Post by Andrew Oxenham)

Author’s bias: I am a 24-year-old, straight male who grew up with Christian (non-denominational) parents, attended Biola University, and majored in Humanities with an emphasis in Philosophy. I left college more curious & confused than anything else. I’m conservative in my politics, and in constant flux with my theology although I lean towards being conservative there as well. It’s hard to put myself in a category, and in some ways this piece is me working out what exactly I think about this particular topic.


1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue? 
 
Homosexuality. I can barely type the word without glancing around the coffee shop I’m writing in to make sure no one gives me a dirty look. It’s a crucial topic for Christians, and I hate to say it but Christianity has done a terrible job addressing it. Somewhere along the way, we failed to understand  (or stopped caring) that discussions concerning homosexuality (especially discussions had with people who consider themselves homosexual) concerned actual people, human beings made in the image and likeness of God. That’s the tricky part about discussing homosexuality is it’s not an abstract concept like the eschaton. It’s a prominent topic that directly pertains to who a person is (at their core). Part of the problem is that various people associated with the Christian faith have said mean-spirited, cruel comments, comments completely devoid of compassion or grace. Some resorted to violent actions. I’m not trying to be hysterical, I’m well aware that there are thousands of Christians engaging in thoughtful, careful debate about homosexuality. Headlines don’t report thoughtful conversations, they report histrionics. The difficulty is that in the court of public opinion, perception is reality and Christians are perceived very negatively when it comes to this topic.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue? 

This topic matters because there are an estimated 9 million Americans who identify themselves as LGBT; that’s roughly the size of New Jersey. But more important than the numbers, homosexuality is the twenty-something’s civil rights debate. It’s an issue that has infused itself into every aspect of the culture. TV shows, movies, music, all aspects of the media constantly have this topic on the tip of their tongues.

To ignore it would be to feign ignorance. On the religious front, the Bible is littered with calls to be informed. On the citizenship front, it is our duty to be informed of the issues which permeate society (Aristotle would back me up on that one).

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved? 

To recap: this issue is important and Christianity hasn’t done an adequate job addressing it. So how can we improve? (note: this list is in no way exhaustive)

Trust/Rapport: One cannot approach a conversation which gets at the deepest parts of a person’s being without rapport. This is the same reason why doing door-to-door evangelizing is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Let me illustrate my point. Here are things I want to talk to strangers about:
  • the weather.
  • weekend plans.
  • nothing.
What all three of those things have in common is that they are shallow conversation topics which have little-to-no emotion invested in them. I would, however, be willing to talk to my best friend about topics that are deep, important and have feelings/emotions invested in them. The difference between my best friend and a stranger? Trust, rapport, credibility. Christians need to understand this.

Definition of Terms:
What one person means by a term isn’t always the same as what another person means by that term. In a discussion as complex as homosexuality it’s imperative that both sides define their terms. As we define terms, we must not jump from one area of the debate to another for the same terms may not be applicable. You can’t jump from “Gay marriage isn’t biblically supported” to “it’s not the state’s job to grant marriage licenses anyways!” That move lacks a concrete definition of terms, and it’s sloppy debating. Don’t go for sloppy, keep it tight (your debating, that is).

Remember Your Bias/Limitations: Just because you consider yourself an open-minded and inquisitive soul doesn’t mean you don’t have biases. Being open and aware of these biases will allow you to pursue truth while being cognizant of your limitations. Be willing to say “You know, I don’t know enough about that particular line of thought.” 

Speak Cautiously: As with any debate, it’s important to speak cautiously. Better to say “this might be the case” versus “it is the case unequivocally” and be wrong. Speaking cautiously is even more important when the discussion centers around issues that are core to who a person is. Be careful, not brash.

Speak Confidently: On the flip side, speak with conviction, the conviction of someone who believes in what they’re saying. Don’t hedge your statements too much. Constantly saying “it’s possible...” or “it might be the case...” leaves you sounding flimsy. When the time comes to speak assertively, do so.

Take Offense/Be Prideful: This may be the most controversial thing I’ve said in some time. It’s important to remember that both sides can take offense. Taking offense in some instances is a way of standing up for yourself. You are a person, one with an intelligent mind. You’re entitled to your opinions and if someone downplays your right to have that opinion, stick up for yourself. Don’t be mamsy-pamsy, inform your conversation partner that you’re insulted. I’m not advocating thin skin, quite the opposite. I’m suggesting that amongst cautious yet confident discussion there is space to say “I’m not blindly asserting nonsense and I’m offended that you’d assume that I am.”

I’ll end with an example and a warning. I posted an article a while back centering around homosexuality. The article was written by a Christian. A non-Christian friend of mine called me up and, after some discussion, informed me that the piece was most likely false because it was biased towards its conclusion. Even further, my friend informed me that I was toeing the party line by agreeing with said piece. Her argument was that because I’m a Christian and the author was a Christian, I would necessarily agree with the article’s conclusion. My response to her was that I was offended she’d think that way. Her and I had been friends for years, she knew I was a person with a open mind. With emotions running high, she told me I was close-minded for believing what I believed and she ended the conversation and the friendship. I haven’t spoken to her since.

This conversation is one of the most central issue facing twenty-something Christians. It’s rife with extreme passions, and to enter into this discussion is no task for the ignorant— no matter how well-meaning they might be. If you’re going to just lob bombs, stay out of the debate. But if you can strive to adopt a Christ-like attitude, one of charity, compassion, grace and conviction, I welcome you to the discussion.

Andrew Oxenham may be found on Twitter if he isn't blogging on his wonderfully named blog. Hint. Click it to find out. 

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Culture Wars: Sex After Christianity

Frankly, I'm not certain what I think about this article. Personally, if I don't know what I think about something, I read the article multiple times and sleep on it. But for your interest:
Too many of them think that same-sex marriage is merely a question of sexual ethics. They fail to see that gay marriage, and the concomitant collapse of marriage among poor and working-class heterosexuals, makes perfect sense given the autonomous individualism sacralized by modernity and embraced by contemporary culture—indeed, by many who call themselves Christians. They don’t grasp that Christianity, properly understood, is not a moralistic therapeutic adjunct to bourgeois individualism—a common response among American Christians, one denounced by Rieff in 2005 as “simply pathetic”—but is radically opposed to the cultural order (or disorder) that reigns today.

They are fighting the culture war moralistically, not cosmologically. They have not only lost the culture, but unless they understand the nature of the fight and change their strategy to fight cosmologically, within a few generations they may also lose their religion.
The source.

--Nick

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Gay Sex, Preachers and . . . TV Sockets?

There is no way this shouldn't be an article on the Onion. I'm pretty traditional when it comes to this topic, but this just. . . .
His premise is there are many ways to deviate from "God's standard," sexually speaking. Premarital sex, adultery, unbiblical divorce, man on man, woman on woman, man on woman on man -- they're all wrong in the Lord's eyes.

He goes on to explain why: "Think about this one time in heaven God was sitting up there with his sketch pad and he said, 'You know, I'm going to design human beings and would it be fun of they started doing this together with one another.'" Jeffress illustrates this by excitedly jabbing his fingers at one another in a way that makes you feel truly sorry for the missus. "God dreamed up sex, He thought it up for our enjoyment, He gave us the equipment to enjoy it with."

He goes on to offer us the parable of the TV delivery man who very specifically tells the purchaser to only plug it into a 120-volt outlet. But the buyer, "because those are antiquated instructions" and "it's my TV and I can do whatever I want to with it," ignores the advice and rams it into the 220-volt outlet.

"Well it is my TV to do what I want to with it but I'm going to blow that TV into smithereens if I put it in a 220 outlet," Jeffress said.
For the rest, if you want a chuckle, click here.

I will hold on for the revelation that he is taken COMPLETELY out of context, but. . .

Bah.

--Nick

Saturday, March 9, 2013

A Debate on Christianity and it's Relationship with the LGBT population

Justin Lee and Ron Belgau discuss the topic at Pepperdine University. As someone who is waiting for additional funds to purchase Justin's book, this was a welcome teaser.

Watch part I here and part II here.

--Nick

Thursday, June 21, 2012

John Piper and the Gay Marriage Amendment

Star Tribune:
Two key conservative evangelical leaders in Minnesota are not endorsing the marriage amendment or directing followers to vote for it, marking the first time during debate over the measure that major faith leaders have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.

Influential preacher and theologian the Rev. John Piper came out against gay marriage during a sermon Sunday but did not explicitly urge members of his Minneapolis church to vote for the amendment.

The Rev. Leith Anderson, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's longtime pastor, also said this week he does not plan to take a public side on the amendment, which would change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Religious observers say the lack of formal backing from the two influential figures could signal that evangelical leaders in Minnesota are taking a less active role in supporting the amendment -- a marked departure from evangelicals in dozens of other states where similar amendments have passed.
"Don't press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism," Piper said during his sermon, posted on Bethlehem Baptist Church's website. "Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative mandates, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word."

Piper had been under pressure from conservative groups to weigh in on the amendment, according to his spokesman David Mathis, adding that Piper did not hold back over concerns the church could lose its tax-exempt status.

"Basically our position is, we're not taking one as a church," Mathis said. "And by addressing this in June rather than October or early November, there's no effort here for political expediency, trying to get certain votes out of people."

"He [Piper] wants to avoid the political realm as much as possible. The Christian Gospel is not left, it's not right. It is what it is."

President of the National Association of Evangelicals, Anderson stepped down in December as senior pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie and said it's inappropriate to take a stand on the amendment because he's no longer an active pastor. Anderson noted he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage in a 2004 pastoral letter to Wooddale congregants.

"When churches start getting really politically engaged, they often lose focus over what is their primary mission," Anderson said in an interview.

"There are appropriate times to do it [be politically engaged]. I think churches should, but they need to be careful about what they do. I especially think churches should seek to be nonpartisan in their approach to teaching moral truths."

The Rev. Mark Poorman, senior pastor at Woodcrest Baptist Church in Fridley, said he has encouraged his congregants to vote for the amendment and is disappointed Anderson and Piper won't join him.

"It would have been nice to hear him [Piper] be a little more dogmatic."
I confess, I'm surprised to hear another pastor ask Piper to be more dogmatic. Good for Piper. It sounds like he has been taking cues from Greg Boyd. ;)

Question:

How involved should Pastors be in regards to politics?

For the rest of the article, click HERE.

--Nick

Friday, June 1, 2012

Green Lantern. . .Gay?

Well, the movie stunk so I guess they have nothing to lose. ;)

FOX:
One of DC Comics oldest heroes is super-coming out.

The original Green Lantern - a DC Comics mainstay for the past 70 years - will be revealed to be a gay man in next week's issue of "Earth 2."

Alan Scott - formerly a married father of two who first appeared in 1940 - tips readers off to his sexuality early on in the comic when he gives his boyfriend a welcome home kiss.

"He's very much the character he was. He's still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He's also gay," "Earth 2" writer James Robinson told The Post.

The Emerald Guardian's sexuality was rebooted along with the rest of his fictional universe as part of DC's "New 52" initiative aimed at rejuvenating their characters.
For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Becoming Mo(o)re, "Homosexuality, Irrationality & False Dialogue"

This isn't to say I agree with everything he's written, but Calvin is a great writer. I found this challenging.

He says:
Despite the clarity of Scripture on the matter of homosexuality—nowhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament is homosexuality not considered sinful—I have found myself talking about the issue more than I ever thought I would. In political, social, and religious spheres the topic of homosexuality has seemingly taken center stage. From the Queer Underground at Biola University to the President of the United States affirming his support of gay marriage to the state of North Carolina recently passing a constitutional ban on the institution, homosexuality seems to be everywhere.


My question is why? Why do we spend so much time on this issue? Many of my friends and acquaintances (and strangers citing why they’ve left the organized church) note that all sins are the same. We don’t get riled up over gluttony do we? Nope. In fact, the church potluck only serves to supplement a person’s need to engorge oneself. So, why then is homosexuality such a big issue?

First, Scripture speaks openly and frankly about the importance of sex. It lays out for us what is appropriate, the context in which it should happen, and shows the consequences of unbridled sexual desire. Accordingly, sex is such a powerful thing that it reaches down to a person’s very identity and personhood. All sins that we commit are outside of the body, except for sexual sins. Scripture differentiates not on the heinousness of the crime, but on the drastic cost of sexual impropriety. Whether pre-marital sex, extramarital sex, or homosexual sex, the Bible is clear.

But, another reason the church is focusing so much time on homosexuality is because it has been made into an issue for us. . .
For the rest, and it is worth your time, click HERE.

--Nick

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

"Who Says Homosexuality is a Sin?" Part I


Josh Gould wrote this. The picture has little to do with this, but I thought the picture was funny by itself. ;)

There’s an ancient quote that says, “any interpretation of scripture which leads to hatred or disdain of other people, is illegitimate.” Some of you might recognize this quote from The Charter of Compassion that was launched a few years ago by Karen Armstrong. Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes who lived during the second century first uttered it and made it famous. St. Augustine also came to the same conclusion, but said it in different words.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, it doesn’t take much effort to see how evangelical Christians oppress and discriminate against someone who identifies as homosexual. These Christians claim that marriage is between one man and one woman and that anything else would destroy the sanctity of marriage, as God established in the Bible. They go out of their way to stand up against issues like same-sex marriage to the point where they pass amendments to ban such an idea. The media especially enjoys plastering their networks with video and pictures of people holding up signs that say, “God hates fags” and “God says fags should die.” Where do they get these ideas from and how can they be so bold as to speak on God’s behalf?

These ideas and interpretations about what God speaks through the Bible come from a place of hatred and, according to Rabbi Meir, this makes them illegitimate. But what exactly are they interpreting? Within the pages of the Bible, there are six verses that are commonly used across the board by Christians opposed to homosexuality: three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at the one that is arguably the strongest, most used verse in the Old Testament. We’ll find this verse in chapter 18 in the Book of Leviticus. It might be helpful to follow along in your own Bible, so feel free to turn there and skim down to verse 22. It reads, “do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, it is detestable” (TNIV). Before we begin breaking down the verse, a little context on Leviticus might be helpful.


For the rest, click below.

TheGodArticle.

--Nick

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Biola Queer Underground, some thoughts



Dear Biola Administration and Community,

First of all, thank you for your ongoing work to make this university an important, beautiful place. We appreciate your sacrifice to make Biola's mission a reality - "equipping men and women [and other] in mind and character to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ."

Let us make clear the purpose of this website. Please understand that our goal is not to change, disrespect, or rebel against the mission or values of this university. This project is a compilation of many individuals; therefore one piece does not necessarily reflect the feelings of all involved. While this letter does not speak for everyone in Biola’s LGBTQ community, the majority of us hold similar values to those which Biola is founded on. We chose to attend and be employed at Biola, and desire to finish our education here and continue our service. Know that this is a big risky step for us.

The purpose of this website is multi-dimensional:

1.We want to bring to light the presence of the LGBTQ community at Biola. Despite what some may assume, there are Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender, and Queers at Biola. We are Biola's students, alumni, employees, and fellow followers of Christ.

2. Biola's value statement reads, “We believe that integrity and authenticity should be hallmarks of every believer. Our relationships should be models of transparency, truth-telling and unwavering commitment to the example set by the Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Biola may have good intentions in the way it handles homosexuality and related subjects, this does not foster the desired outcome of integrity and transparency among LGBTQ individuals. We speak for our majority in saying that most LGBTQ people feel isolated and fearful of rejection should we act with integrity and come out of the closet. Biola needs to take a close look at its fundamental values, first to question whether they are carried out, and second to discuss if identifying as LGBTQ is in fact contrary to these values.

3. We want to be treated with equality and respected as another facet of Biola’s diversity. Reconciling faith with non-conforming gender/sexual identities is our most important and difficult goal. This of course will take time. We begin by sharing a few of our personal stories and writings.  

In conclusion, hearts need to be changed not policies, minds opened not handbooks, and love spread where there is division. We unapologetically pursue our purposes with prayer, patience, and humility.

Love,
The Biola Queer Underground
Me:
I'm grateful this conversation was brought out. It's been quite interesting to think and reconsider how everything is working. 
There is a lot to be said about this, but a few things as a beginning:
1) Dialogue isn't equated with changing one's mind. All dialogue allows is for the expressing of opinion in the pursuit of truth. One cannot have dialogue if one is so blindly convinced. This applies to traditionalists and gay activists as well. If some want traditionalists to reconsider the data, then the option of being wrong is on both sides to be humble. 
2) Biola is not required to change their mind about anything, being a private university. However, in the manner of Christ, we ought to pursue truth as our priority. This means looking intently to what Scripture says. 
3) I see little reason to not allow gay-advocates to come to Biola to give their opinion, as long as we all transcend comments about "hate-speech and liberal wussies." I think another comment is needed in response to a comeback offered by the Biola Queer Underground. 
3a) What happens if Biola is right? If we are all pursuing truth, and Biola's traditional stance is indeed correct, how will gay-advocates and the Biola Queer Underground respond? It seems to be an uneven demand here. 
3b) I'm willing to reexamine the data to see if it supports same-sex marriage. However, if it turns out the traditional view is correct, what happens? I'm not certain what happens to Christian gay-advocates if they are wrong, especially in relation to their conduct at Biola.


3c) Of course, what if the traditionalists are wrong?
Still thinking about it. For more, go HERE.
--Nick

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Michael Horton, "Same Sex Marriage Makes a Lot of Sense"


Don't worry, I don't think Michael Horton is outing himself as a liberal. I generally don't agree with Horton on finer points of doctrine, but he's a cool dude. Here, he offers some great insights.
The media is still buzzing with President Obama’s recent announcement that he personally favors same-sex marriage. In 1996, he favored it. In 2004, though, he rejected it (affirming civil unions) on grounds of his Christian convictions that marriage is a “sanctified” union of a man and woman. Now he has reversed that position, again offering his Christian convictions (loving neighbors and being in a church community that accepts same-sex couples) as a rationale. 
Speculations about political motivations aside, the President is hardly alone in his waffling over this controversial issue of significance for American society. Nor is he alone among those who say that they affirm same-sex marriage—or their own homosexual lifestyle—as something that is affirmed by God and their Christian commitment.
For the rest, White Horse Inn.

--Nick

Friday, May 11, 2012

A Gay Liberal Christian Defends Campus Crusade?

Well. Kinda, yeah. Quite interesting. I like this Rev. Peter Gomes. 
From the Tennessean: 
When Vanderbilt wanted its freshmen students to learn about ethics, the school turned to the late Rev. Peter Gomes to teach them. Gomes’ book, The Good Life, was required reading for the Vanderbilt class of 2015. 
Now some critics of Vanderbilt’s nondiscrimination policy hope the school will turn to Gomes, a Harvard professor who died last year, once again. 
In 2003, a Christian group at Harvard called the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship ran afoul of that school’s nondiscrimination policy because it required its leaders to hold specific beliefs. 
Harvard’s administration told the group to change its ways or leave campus. But Gomes, a professor and minister of the Memorial Church at Harvard, defended the student group, saying the university was discriminating against it.
“How can a profession of faith be irrelevant in the leadership of a faith-based group?” he wrote in a 2003 letter to the Harvard Crimson, the university’s student newspaper.
To find out the rest of the story, click HERE.

--Nick

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

A Gay Christian Responds to Amendment One

I've been a fan of Justin Lee for some time, and I think this sums up quite a bit on the issue of North Carolina. Justin offers a respectful yet passion perspective that many of my friends, both left and right, can find something worthwhile in. 


Lee:


This is probably the most political thing I will ever post on this blog, but in spite of the fact that it was inspired by a recent political debate, this isn’t actually a political post. It’s actually about people, and how we respond to these sorts of polarizing political debates.
As you may know, I live in North Carolina, which until last night was the only state in this region of the country not to have adopted a constitutional amendment permanently banning same-sex marriage. North Carolina law already states that “marriage” in the eyes of our state is only between a man and a woman, so the general sentiment seemed to be that there was no need to go further and amend our state constitution on this polarizing issue.
But times change, and after the election two years ago brought about a change in which party had local power, an amendment was put on the North Carolina ballot to permanently enshrine the state’s opposition to same-sex marriage in the constitution. The proposed amendment was known as Amendment One, and if you’ve been watching the news, you already know that it passed last night.
There’s been a ton of moral outrage about this on all sides, much of it from outside of the state. This latest political fight came to symbolize so much about the culture war for folks on both sides, that it almost seemed irrelevant that this was about North Carolina.
So as a lifelong North Carolinian who is also one of the most outspoken gay Christians on the internet, I have something to say about this.
First of all, it shouldn’t be any surprise that I opposed the amendment. I think same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as other couples, and even if I didn’t, many experts have argued that the wording of this amendment is dangerously vague, not only banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also affecting heterosexual couples, children’s health insurance, domestic violence victims, and other important issues—all to ban something that was already banned to begin with.
Maybe you agree with me; maybe you disagree. But that’s not the point I want to make.
After last night’s vote, I heard a disturbingly large number of my friends, national commentators, and others suggesting that this vote just proves that North Carolinians (or at least a giant percentage of us) are bigoted, homophobic, backwards people who are so filled with hate that we oppose equality for certain groups just because we can.
And see, that’s just not the case. Yes, I voted against the amendment, as did many of my friends and hundreds of thousands of other NC residents. But I also know people who voted for it, and I know that they are not simply bigoted, homophobic, backwards people. It’s way more complicated than that.
For the rest, which is worth your time, click HERE.
--Nick

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Christian Piatt, "'Angry Queers,' Mark Driscoll & Mars Hill"

Unless it wasn't obvious, I'm not a fan of Mark Driscoll. That said, I do not find this conduct to be helpful in any way. Its unbecoming of rational people. I find myself largely agreeing with Piatt on this one, save for nuances that can be explained if asked.
Christian Piatt:

I had a stew of emotions when I read about an activist group in Portland calling itself the “Angry Queers” vandalizing a satellite church of Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill network. Neighbors in the area reported seeing a handful of young people in black masks smashing stained glass windows and damaging other property on the church campus early Tuesday morning.  A group called the “Angry Queers” sent a letter to a local news affiliate taking responsibility for the damage.
I get the anger. I feel that anger when I read things that pastors like Mark Driscoll say about the LGBT community. It’s wrong and it should be confronted publicly.
But please, for the love of God and one another, not like this.
Local pastor Chuck Currie, known for his vocal criticism of Mars Hill’s theology and portrayal of women and the LGBT community, is right in calling for this to be treated as a hate crime.
“If Mars Hills Church represents the worst of Christianity,” said Curry in a recent Huffington Post article, “and I believe it sadly does, those response for this attack represent the worst of Portland.”
He’s right.
There is such a thing as righteous anger, and we all should call one another to account when we treat individuals or groups as “less than.” But such

Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll
a response actually serves an opposite purpose from what I believe was intended. By noting that the vandalism changes nothing about the church’s mission, Mars Hill ends up being the more tolerant party in this case. Granted, they’ve stopped short thus far of publicly forgiving the vandals, but they’re not returning the violence with an equal dose of anger.
It also compromises the entire face of the pro-LGBT movement. It serves to reinforce the stereotype some have of LGBT people as somehow beyond the bounds of “typical” Americans. From my perspective as a straight male of some privilege, I can’t, for the life of me, see how anything about this stunt helps further the cause of the Gay/Lesbian community or to call Mars Hill to account for their intolerant rhetoric.
I tend to believe that violent responses to injustice point to a lack of imagination. It suggests that the angry party can’t see any way out of their situation other than with aggression or violence. But in my experience, it’s the creative, nonviolent responses that truly end up making a more lasting impression on the public. Author and theologian Walter Wink has influenced my thinking about this more than anyone.
Wink says, as I’ve talked about in previous articles, that we often look at injustice and assume we have two options: do nothing or respond in kind. But by acting like that which we consider wrong, we become more like it. Think of Luke Skywalker inStar Wars, who cuts off Darth Vader’s hand, only to find that his own hand has become the very one he struck on his enemy. Wink also proposes that, in doing nothing, we tacitly condone the wrong that we would otherwise call to account.
Fortunately, Wink finds a third way in the life and teaching of Jesus. I’ll not hash out his entire proposal here; for a more thorough discussion of Wink’s third way, click the link to the earlier article above. But I do want to share a story that, though I’ve told it before, is worth sharing again.
I am part of a denomination called the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Yes, the parentheses are actually part of the name. Every two years we have a gathering called the General Assembly, where all Disciples are invited to come together to worship, learn and share stories and a meal. It’s pretty cool to have thousands of Disciples and squashed into one city at the same time. But at times, it also draws some negative attention.

Protesters from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church
Several years back, when we were meeting in Kansas City, Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist folks showed up to protest our denomination because some of our congregations ordain LGBT clergy. The Westboro folks are notorious by now for picketing military funerals and grabbing attention in some of the most unlikely – and generally unpleasant – contexts. They also tend to verbally antagonize folks with the hope (yes, really) that someone will assault one of their members. They, in turn, sue the assailant, which in turn funds their strange little church.
This is a perfect example of the negative consequences of a lack of creative imagination when it comes to responding to injustice. The Westboro folks have actually figured out how to exploit that deficit of creativity for personal gain. It’s abhorrent, but we do always have a choice.
When they showed up to our Assembly in Kansas City, I got a little taste of their strategy first hand. As I waited to cross the street, one of the protesters started calling me names and getting up in my face, though very careful not to actually touch me. Wary of my short fuse, Amy quickly grabbed my arm and took me in a different direction. But I could see the immediate appeal of laying one of them out on their ass.
But leave it to our younger folks to show us all a “third way.” they gathered a couple dozen youth across the street from the hollering picketers and began to sing to them. They didn’t make fun of them, or call them any names. They didn’t even address them directly. They just sang some of their camp songs and then left.
Their response inspired me, as evidenced by the fact that I’m telling the story some ten years later. It was a small, simple gesture at the time, but it’s funny how simple, Christlike responses can have unexpected, amazing and lasting effects.
Don’t believe me? Go back and read the stories about this guy named Jesus and his handful of followers who wandered around by foot, helping people, telling stories and living out this strangely unnatural “third way.”
Fast forward two thousand years, and I’d say that relatively simple ministry made a difference. And per Jesus’ explicit instruction, not a stone was cast in the process.
It is possible; we just have to have the willingness and capacity to imagine it.
--Nick

Monday, April 16, 2012

Tony Jones, "Evangelical Colleges and Their Gay Students"


In my neck-o-the-woods, Bethel University‘s provost recently held an open conversation with gay students and allies, where they were able to talk openly about their experiences at a college that officially discriminates against them.
At one of my alma maters, Fuller Theological Seminary, a campus-wide conversation about sexuality was recently held. Heteronormativity was ultimately upheld at each of these institutions, but here’s what I think: As soon as you give LGBT persons a voice, they are humanized. And when that happens, it’s only a matter of time before discriminatory policies begin to collapse.
At HuffPo, Ron Davis writes about a similar debate being held at his alma mater, George Fox University:
Like many evangelical colleges, the school requires students and staff to sign a lifestyle agreement which, among other things, requires them to refrain from nonmarital sexual activity and proscribes homosexual relationships. A group of LGBTQ and allied alumni called OneGeorgeFox presented the administration with an open letter. The letter challenges the University’s policy, and disputes LGBTQ stereotypes, invoking gay student’s desire to have families and demanding their Christian community’s support.
The University responded to the letter with characteristic civility, affirming everyone’s dignity, and acknowledging the need for improved communication, but ultimately reiterating its heteronormative theological position. Less characteristically, the administration has told its faculty that, although they can facilitate discussions among students, signing the letter or otherwise publicly advocating for a position at odds with the University’s policy violates their employment contracts.
Consequently, a passionate, ideologically diverse faculty’s signatures are notably absent. This is egregious. Universities exist, in large part, to encourage truth-seeking, and the faculty form the backbone of this pursuit. That a Quaker university could display such gross epistemic hubris strongly suggests the administration has lost sight of these guiding principles. (Read the rest: Ron Davis: Evangelical Universities, Gay Students and Faculty Freedom.)
I am an adjunct professor at Fuller, and I can say that, to Fuller’s credit (most notably,Kurt Frederickson‘s and Rich Mouw‘s credit), they have never attempted to silence me. They have simply asked that while I’m teaching a Fuller class, I respect their Statement ofCommunity Standards. That seems completely reasonable, and I happy to comply with that request.

Tony Jones

--Nick

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Roger Olson, "Evangelicals, Divorce and Homosexual Hypocrisy?"

I'd love to read the original article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Sounds quite interesting. Anyways, onto Olson. 


A recent guest editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (April 1, 2012) argues that evangelicals are inconsistent, if not hypocritical, when they tolerate divorce and remarriage but condemn homosexual relations. (I am assuming the author means by the latter monogomous and faithful homosexual relationships.)
Former pastor Tim Turner closes his editorial with “Writing this certainly isn’t going to endear me to my evengelical friends, whom I love and cherish. However, it seems that despite their zeal to hold to a ‘literal’ reading of the Bible, the ability to pick and choose what one reads literally remains alive and well.”
Turner makes the case that Scripture, including Jesus himself, condemns divorce and remarriage with the sole exception of adultery as the reason for the divorce. And he argues that the biblical case against divorce and remarriage is even clearer than the case against homosexuality (by which I take it he means homosexual sexual activity).
Turner then assumes that, by-and-large, American evangelicals have come to tolerate divorce and remarriage both in society at large and within their own churches.
My question to Turner and to you is whether this is comparison and critique is justified. Are divorce and remarriage and homosexual activity ethically identical from a biblical perspective (in terms of their being wrong)? Is an evangelical church that tolerates divorce and remarriage (for causes other than adultery) inconsistent, perhaps even hypocritical, when it then excludes from full fellowship or disciplines a homosexual couple known to be engaging in sexual relations?
I am not sure whether Turner’s editorial is available on line. If so, it will be found at the web site of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
I think this is an important challenge and evangelicals either need to explain themselves/ourselves or change our habits.
Olson/ Divorce & Homosexuality

--Nick