What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

So much for that particular CHI

The big news in the evangelical world today concerning "gay, celibate Christians" who affirm an essential and positive homosexual identity (I have coined the expression CHI or "Christian Homosexual Identifier" for this) is that Julie Rodgers, a Protestant CHI, has "come out" a second time, this time in favor of non-celibate relationships.

Rodgers was hired amidst some fanfare by Wheaton College last year and was featured in an interview in World. Her role was to be the leader of an LGBT student club at Wheaton. Now she has resigned at Wheaton (that's one good thing).

But let me back up a bit.

Two years ago Wheaton started an LGBT club called Refuge. I don't know quite how naive President Ryken and other orthodox administrators are, but I suspect we have not yet plumbed the depths of their naivete, or perhaps I should say their self-deception. From the very outset, Refuge was very clearly intended to challenge Christian ethics, despite the fact that Wheaton is attempting to hold on (by its fingernails, at this point) to its traditional sexual moral code.

I posted about the formation of Refuge here. Here were just a few of the things that could have told anyone who wasn't asleep what Refuge was encouraging from the outset.

“I saw my future as something that was really bleak because, identifying as gay, I felt like I had been told that I was allowed to be a Christian as long as I fulfilled a certain set of requirements and as long as I stayed miserable and de-legitimized this very real aspect of my life,” a Refuge member said.

To say that "staying miserable" is not-so-subtle code for "staying celibate" should hardly be controversial.

A Refuge member also expressed hope that the Wheaton community will change its approach to this topic.

“There is no reason to fear talking about such topics, and I hope that our campus can approach conversations about the LGBTQ experience in a humble and loving way,” a Refuge member said. “We should be eager to talk honestly about it and not be afraid of perspectives that may be different from our own. I don’t think we should shy away from any conversation no matter how difficult it may seem to us.”

What could those "perspectives that differ from our own" possibly be?

And then there was this:

Another source of frustration for Refuge members is the lack of sensitivity in language due to the assumptions about the gender identities and sexual orientations of Wheaton students.

“Whether because of the homophobic comments and jokes in the dorms … or the all-encompassing assumptions made in public … there are many ways that LGBTQ students can be made to feel marginalized or isolated,” a Refuge member said.

So Refuge members wanted all speakers at Wheaton to be constantly checking their language for its "sensitivity" to "LGBTQ students," including not making heteronormative assumptions.

That this club was clearly promoting homosexual acts as normal should have been absolutely obvious. Indeed, as I said in the original article, to think otherwise was to tell ourselves lies.

But Wheaton's administrators were bound and determined to tell themselves those lies.

The saga continued when Wheaton's administration came, last winter, to a dim realization that Refuge wasn't what they wanted it to be. (Pause for a thought: What exactly did they want it to be? What does any Christian college think it's doing when it creates such a club? Creating a place and time where homosexual students got together and talked about how they shouldn't commit homosexual acts? That doesn't really sound all that helpful. It also doesn't sound like it would fill a meeting agenda. It also makes one wonder how roommates of these homosexual students feel about their own privacy.) So they stopped letting it be a student-led club, removed Justin Massey, an openly homosexual student who wanted to turn it into a gay-straight alliance, from the leadership, and instead put Julie Rodgers, employed directly by the college, at the helm. Problem solved, right? Gushed President Ryken, "The clear effect of Julie’s ministry has been to draw students in the direction of biblical faithfulness, including areas of sexuality.”

One can only wonder how wildly far from biblical faithfulness the students must have been before that for her ministry to draw them in the direction thereof.

But is that even true in any sense whatsoever? Now, Rodgers (who, please note, has been employed by Wheaton for less than a calendar year) virtually admits that she has been counseling young people with same-sex attraction that it's okay to have committed, physical homosexual relationships!

When young people have angsted at me about the gay debate, I’ve just told them to follow Jesus—to seek to honor Him with their sexuality and love others well. For some, I imagine they will feel led to commit to lifelong celibacy. For others, I think it will mean laying their lives down for spouses and staying true to that promise to the end. My main hope for all of them is that they would grow to love Jesus more and that it would overflow into a life spent on others.

Since she was hired by Wheaton to counsel precisely those young people, it is quite evident that some of these "young people" she is talking about are Wheaton students. And she is openly saying that a) she has told them just to "follow Jesus" and to "honor him with their sexuality" and b) one thing she means by that is having homosexual sex so long as it is in a relationship with a homosexual "spouse."

So Wheaton has brought this woman in to promote celibacy for homosexuals, and it now appears that she has quietly been promoting the opposite. I doubt that the students were so stupid as not to realize what she actually thought about the matter, and frankly, it doesn't sound like she took much trouble to hide it in her counseling of them.

Here are a few more quotes from Rodgers's latest post:

Though I’ve been slow to admit it to myself, I’ve quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now. When friends have chosen to lay their lives down for their partners, I’ve celebrated their commitment to one another and supported them as they’ve lost so many Christian friends they loved.

Gee, how did nobody notice this?

While I struggle to understand how to apply Scripture to the marriage debate today (just like we all struggle to know how to interpret Scripture on countless controversial topics), I’ve become increasingly troubled by the unintended consequences of messages that insist all LGBT people commit to lifelong celibacy. No matter how graciously it’s framed, that message tends to contribute to feelings of shame and alienation for gay Christians. It leaves folks feeling like love and acceptance are contingent upon them not-gay-marrying and not-falling-in-gay-love. When that’s the case—when communion is contingent upon gays holding very narrow beliefs and making extraordinary sacrifices to live up to a standard that demands everything from an individual with little help from the community—it’s hard to believe our bodies might be an occasion for joy.

Translation: "It makes people who identify as homosexual feel really bad when you tell them they can't engage in sexual acts, so now I've abandoned that position." Gotta love the smarmy phrase "our bodies might be an occasion for joy" with reference to homosexual sex acts.

Most of the Christians I know love gay people­. They simply underestimate the burden of feeling marginalized, scrutinized, unwanted and relationally toxic because one of the best things about us—the way we give our love away—is seen as sinful. It’s easy for straight Christians to underestimate how exhausting it is to simply exist in communities that feel uncomfortable with gays: we’re constantly wondering if we should tell the truth when asked that question, or sleep on the floor when there’s room in the bed,

Yes, Julie, if you mean this literally, you shouldn't be sleeping in a bed with another woman unless one or both of you is going to die of hypothermia in an Arctic winter otherwise. And young people should be counseled in the same way.

or cut that hug short, or voice that question, or publish that post, or write that tweet, or curb that mannerism, or run from that friendship, or shut down those feelings or leave the church altogether. Those fears subside around friends who simply delight in who we are as whole human beings made in the image of God.

Those, of course, would be people who say that homosexual sex acts are perfectly A-okay, in case anyone needed a translation.

But most will find it [a committed relationship] in a spouse because that’s the context we have for making such serious commitments and staying true to them once life happens. When we make those kinds of promises to one another, we need a community to surround us to support us for the long haul. Communities with a traditional sexual ethic have, more often than not, dismissed sexual minorities the moment they moved in this direction. Rather than working out what it would look like for them to stay connected to the church and process all the questions in community, they’ve forced gays to go it alone.

Communities with a traditional sexual ethic have to dismiss "sexual minorities" (gotta love that phrase--do tell, Julie, how many different "sexual minorities" are included?) when they "look in the direction" of actually having sex, because that's what it means to have a traditional sexual ethic. See? How unloving to be true to your principles. These communities were simply supposed to throw all that over when the homosexual people among them decided to do so. We were all supposed to grow together in a more progressive direction.

Because many Christians assume that those who support same-sex relationships do so out of a desire to satiate their appetites rather than sincere Christian convictions, I feel the need to say that I’m not dating anyone (though I’ll add that our public obsession with total strangers’ sex lives does strike me as strange).

In other words, she could start "dating" another woman at any moment, because she now thinks that's just fine. She just happens to be celibate right at this particular moment in her life. Thanks for clearing that up, Julie. Not that any Christian organization should be employing you right now to guide the young anyway, but it's good to have that point clear.

My goal now is the same as it’s always been: to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the God who’s been my first love all along. When it comes to this conversation, my goal has been to help Christians create the kinds of communities that make LGBT people feel wanted—where we can worship God, use our gifts, serve our neighbors, and find a family to share in the joys and sorrows of living in a world where so many people are so lonely. That looks a little different to me now that I’ve seen so much fruit in affirming communities, but it’s a widening of my circle—not a move in a different direction.

"Affirming communities" being, of course, those who think homosexual acts are A-okay.

So, does the Wheaton administration now realize what a disastrous mistake it was to form an LGBT club?? Will they dissolve the club? Will they realize that they made a huge mistake in hiring Rodgers herself and that she has not had the effect they wanted and for which they hired her?

Since Rodgers's statement just came out yesterday, we won't know for a while. Pessimist that I am, I suspect that at the most they will go out and find another CHI to lead it.

And one thing I am quite sure of: They will continue to welcome students who hold views diametrically opposed to the school's views on sexuality. Yes, I realize that student beliefs are not quite as crucial as faculty beliefs, but when you have a vocal contingent of students openly rejecting the school's position on perverted sex acts, that should be regarded as a crisis. It is not clear to me that Wheaton has so regarded it, and their approach has been all along to cosset those defiant students and try to find some way to bring them gently along to a biblical view, rather than telling them that they cannot be students at Wheaton while openly and loudly advocating the morality of homosexual sex, period. See this rather bizarre incident in which a morally traditional Wheaton student threw an apple at the shoulder of a vocally, stridently pro-homosexual-acts Wheaton student who was heckling the President in a Q & A. Guess who got disciplined?

The most depressing thing about this whole saga is that Wheaton is trying to hold some kind of principled line. Wheaton is on the relatively good end of Christian colleges from a sexually orthodox point of view. I mean, at least they tried to do some kind of repair on the situation by hiring Rodgers. But they weren't willing and able to say that they'd made a big mistake in allowing Refuge in the first place, to disband it, to start disciplining students and professors who are advocating homosexual acts, and to screen students more closely as part of the admission process. That would be too mean, and the fear of meanness is, in the evangelical world, the road to compromise. Until the Wheaton administration gets over the fear of meanness and replaces it entirely with the fear of God, without apology, they will continue to bumble along leftwards, just more slowly than some other schools.

Comments (33)

Communities with a traditional sexual ethic have, more often than not, dismissed sexual minorities the moment they moved in this direction. Rather than working out what it would look like for them to stay connected to the church and process all the questions in community, they’ve forced gays to go it alone.

Notice how pro-homo advocates couch the debate. Whenever the behavior of traditionalists is contrasted with homos, the former can always be more sensitive, more accepting, more understanding, etc. The latter's behavior is never acknowledged as sinful, disruptive, or disrespectful of authority.

If homo activists were concerned with truth, justice, love, and mercy; they'd be willing to admit their own faults and sins. They'd admit concern with how their liberal views on sexuality cause discomfort with traditionalists and lead to splits in the church, or they'd at least admit utilitarian deficiencies in homo behavior (like AIDS or inability of 2 men or 2 women to beget) instead of claiming all love is equal. They'd admit to too harshly condemning traditional Christians at times just as traditionalists are expected to admit they've mistreated sinners in the past.

But as propagandists they don't. It's all gay all the time. If they wanted to come into the fold of God they'd show humility and shame for the sinful bent of their hearts. They don't. As Paul wrote:

"God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you."

Though I’ve been slow to admit it to myself, I’ve quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now. When friends have chosen to lay their lives down for their partners, I’ve celebrated their commitment to one another and supported them as they’ve lost so many Christian friends they loved.

This was pointed out here before I think, but since these so-called relationships inherently lack complimentarity, fecundity, and teleology, I have yet to hear a defender of SSM give a reason why they should be "committed" or exclusive that wasn't arbitrary or based on fickle sentiment.

Anyone who uses "angst" as a verb earns instant suspicion in my book. Sheesh.

More seriously, I think it's particularly disgraceful how she uses the biblical language, "lay their lives down for their partners," to endorse sexual immorality. A truly biblical application of that phrase would involve, say, a man who learns than his young wife, through some rare condition or injury, cannot have sexual intercourse, and yet he still cleaves to his vows through a long and happy marriage. That's actually laying down your life for your partner, where unexpected circumstances in this fallen world reveal than a marriage vow entails, in effect, a vow of celibacy.

Lydia, this is really simple - it appears we have this in writing:

“You would be mistaken to think that I threw the apple out of hatred,” the letter goes on to say, 'I have a strong aim and could hit a head at fifteen meters if I wanted to. No, I threw it purposefully as a warning against insulting the spirit of grace. Because truth itself was maligned.'”

And we have the state of Illinois' criminal code:

"(720 ILCS 5/12-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-3)
Sec. 12-3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
(b) Sentence.
Battery is a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11.)"

The student, senior Roland Hesse, should be arrested and charged with battery. I was going to suggest that anyone believing me being too harsh should have someone hurl an apple at them from behind and above but won't as that seems dangerous. Apples are hard.

Do you really believe it was OK to throw a hard object from a balcony into a crowd?

Al, if you like, they could discipline both students. But the student who was heckling the President in order to promote the perspective *diametrically opposed* to the school's statement, mission, and purpose should certainly have been disciplined as well.

I'll admit, I find it difficult to get all that worked up about someone's getting hit very carefully and deliberately, once, on a non-fatal portion of his body with an apple under those particular circumstances, by a good marksman, but yes, I was aware that it was probably a (relatively minor) criminal offense.

Hesse could have gotten more humor value (and better padding) by hurling it at the other student's derriere, but that would probably have been regarded as crude.

GW, you are right: Until those with this agenda are ready to be aggressive-aggressive, unrelenting passive aggression is their invariable approach, especially in the Christian world. "Poor, poor little us, our church dismisses us instead of agreeing with us when we move in the direction of engaging in homosexual acts. How mean." What is sickening is how well it works. Christian churches repeatedly rush to assure them of their loooooove, instead of pointing out, as you say, that _they_ are the ones being schismatic, attacking and trying to undermine their churches' moral stances, and causing trouble for everyone else by advocating things they *knew from the first* the church stands against.

Sage, yes, the attempt to advocate homosexual fidelity has, at most, some sort of utilitarian value (avoiding disease and so forth). It is definitely not rooted in the nature of the relationship, and in fact many homosexual "couples" have "open" relationships, and this is being admitted more and more now as we're told that they have this to "teach" to heterosexuals. (So much for "how will this hurt your heterosexual marriage.")

Paul, the weird thing is that I would bet that *right now*, anyway, Rodgers has actually convinced herself that she can port over all of that to homosexual "committed relationships"--taking care of one another in sickness, being celibate if the other is injured, etc. I don't know how long she will continue to believe that this is possible, but what she is trying to do right now is to create and advocate a full-fledged ersatz of heterosexual, life-long marriage.

It's important to remember that even the CHIs who still believe in celibacy will advocate the incredibly foolish idea of "avowed" homosexual couples who are celibate with each other but (apparently) live with each other. Sort of like marriage without the sex. (How do you spell "scandal and near occasion of sin"?) Eve Tushnet has even gone so far as to say that a same-sex-attracted man could legitimately have an "avowed" male homosexual friend *and also* be married to a woman. He would just have to balance, somehow, the claims of his dear, avowed male friend and of the wife to whom he had taken marriage vows. Insanity.

So the CHIs are constantly veering as close to the wind as possible when it comes to approving of homosexual "marriage." Tushnet says that she would go to a homosexual "wedding" in order to affirm their love, self-giving, blah, blah for each other.

It is really no surprise in the least in that bizarre ideological context that Rodgers should eventually have just said, "Oh, heck, who am I fooling? I don't really think homosexual acts are wrong! I approve of homosexual couples. Think how loving and committed they can be! And it's just silly to pretend that they are not going to have sex with each other, so let's just approve of the whole thing."

"I'll admit, I find it difficult to get all that worked up about someone's getting hit very carefully and deliberately, once, on a non-fatal portion of his body with an apple under those particular circumstances, by a good marksman, but yes, I was aware that it was probably a (relatively minor) criminal offense."

Lydia, of course the heckler should be disciplined if guilty but - and I'm assuming innocence on your part - you seem to have no appreciation of how far south things like this can go (cue up "The Lonesome Death Of Hattie Carroll"). Schools have security folks whose job is to deal with hecklers who go too far - do we need vigilantes too? That the thrower CLAIMS to be a "marksman" doesn't mean he is (and just how does one achieve "marksman" status at that distance with an aerodynamically unstable object like an apple anyway - I once had a bullet literally part my hair, "non-fatal" to be sure but an inch over...). Just how do you know he was being so "careful"? Why would you take at face value a note that is clearly designed to minimize what he now realizes is a criminal act. What if, as is most likely, he went for a near miss and screwed up? Why do I say that? Because I'm a guy, used to be that age and "oops" was a common expression back in the day. Would you be so dismissive if a gay student threw a similar object at a similar distance at someone who was expressing views that agreed with yours?

That you seem to willing to accept a certain level of violence over something so trivial should give you pause. Are you all getting too worked up over something that, in a few years, will be no big deal? This is at an academic level for most of you but you should be aware that you may be getting folks lower on the food chain too excited.

BTW, I realized after I posted that I missed something and Hesse may be really sweating a bit now:

"(720 ILCS 5/12-7.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-7.1)
Sec. 12-7.1. Hate crime.
(a) A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action, disorderly conduct, harassment by telephone, or harassment through electronic communications as these crimes are defined in Sections 12-1, 12-2, 12-3(a), 16-1, 19-4, 21-1, 21-2, 21-3, 25-1, 26-1, 26.5-2, and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(5) of Section 26.5-3 of this Code, respectively.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (b-5), hate crime is a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent offense.
(b-5) Hate crime is a Class 3 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent offense if committed:

(1) in a church, synagogue, mosque, or other
building, structure, or place used for religious worship or other religious purpose;

(2) in a cemetery, mortuary, or other facility used for the purpose of burial or memorializing the dead;

(3) in a school or other educational facility,
including an administrative facility or public or private dormitory facility of or associated with the school or other educational facility;"


It is definitely not rooted in the nature of the relationship, and in fact many homosexual "couples" have "open" relationships, and this is being admitted more and more now as we're told that they have this to "teach" to heterosexuals./em>

Well, SSM has only been legal in parts of the US for about a decade and during that time there has been a decline in infidelity among long-term homosexual couples (married and unmarried) of about 17%. For male couples this still means they have a long way to go, but female couples are closing in very quickly and may even surpass heterosexual fidelity rates.

Andrew Sullivan wrote an article about a decade ago which addressed this specific dynamic, how integration into the mainstream meant to a large extent the end of a distinctive gay culture, the bar and bathhouse ghettos that were their primary social and sexual outlets. In fact, when Sullivan wrote a book that promoted the notion of SSM he was named public enemy number one by some radical lesbian groups who decried his proposal as reactionary and patriarchal. How do you like those ironic apples?

Schools have security folks whose job is to deal with hecklers who go too far - do we need vigilantes too?

Al, I don't think you quite understand: I'm saying, outright, that the school should discipline the heckler for the _content_ of his heckling, not for "going too far." You yourself have (probably disingenuously) said that now religious bodies should turn their attention to internal discipline. *That* is what I'm talking about. Anybody who is a student at an allegedly faithful Christian college, who gets up and starts publically challenging the school's policy against homosexual acts, should be subject to discipline on that ground alone. And if the policy doesn't make this clear, it should be clarified to that effect.

It's important to remember that even the CHIs who still believe in celibacy will advocate the incredibly foolish idea of "avowed" homosexual couples who are celibate with each other but (apparently) live with each other. Sort of like marriage without the sex. (How do you spell "scandal and near occasion of sin"?) Eve Tushnet has even gone so far as to say that a same-sex-attracted man could legitimately have an "avowed" male homosexual friend *and also* be married to a woman. He would just have to balance, somehow, the claims of his dear, avowed male friend and of the wife to whom he had taken marriage vows. Insanity.

So the CHIs are constantly veering as close to the wind as possible ...


There are two reasons that I always write the 'gay', when referring to homosexuality, in scare-quotes (thus: "gay") --
1) the lesser reason: I'm not willing to surrender the word's original meaning;
2) the more important reason: "gay-hood" is all about leftist identity politics.

Thus, a (presumptive) Christian who is afflicted with same-sex attraction but who does *not* self-identify as "gay" will generally not be trying to dance right up to the line of sin -- daring God to keep pulling his/her chestnuts out of the fire he/she keeps tossing them into -- but, rather, will acknowledge that this is a sin from they must flee.

On the other hand, a (presumptive) Christian who is afflicted with same-sex attraction and who *does* self-identify as "gay" will generally be doing the very things you're talking about -- for he/she is (generally) not willing to acknowledge that this is sin and to flee from it.

.... really, this is another example of the well-known human perversity: "No FAIR! Why can't I have it both ways!"

Oh, of course gays want to put the burden of "phobia" on those who object to their behavior, without admitting the nature of the dispute. But to make it clear, all you have to do is change "gay" to "pedophile" and see where it goes:

“Whether because of the anti-pedophile comments and jokes in the dorms … or the all-encompassing assumptions made in public … there are many ways that active pedophile students can be made to feel marginalized or isolated,”
When young people have angsted at me about the pedophile debate, I’ve just told them to follow Jesus—to seek to honor Him with their pedophile sex acts and love others well.
While I struggle to understand how to apply Scripture to the pedophilia debate today (just like we all struggle to know how to interpret Scripture on countless controversial topics), I’ve become increasingly troubled by the unintended consequences of messages that insist all pedophiles people commit to lifelong celibacy. No matter how graciously it’s framed, that message tends to contribute to feelings of shame and alienation for pedophile Christians. It leaves folks feeling like love and acceptance are contingent upon no-pedophile sex and not giving free rein to desires for having sex with children.

To which I answer: I will love you no matter what your behavior. So there, you have my love, unconditionally. But I willingly tolerate only behavior that is not a public disgrace, and I will celebrate only behavior that is loving behavior ON MY DEFINITION OF LOVE. If you don't like the definition of love that my Church has, you can change your definition to accept mine, or change to a different church, you cannot IMPOSE your definition on me and call that "tolerant." Insisting that you want to "feel loved" and not "feel shame and alienation" while publicly embracing behavior that we detest as contrary to love is just literally a kind of insanity. Of course you are going to feel alienated from those whose highest ideals and beliefs you trample in the mud by what you say and do. Duh!

This demonstrates why the "gay-but-celibate" movement is so dangerous. We would say "don't take 'gay' as your identity; take *Christ* as your identity, then follow where that leads you." But that's hard -- that would lead to accepting the Scripture as true and recognizing homosexual urges as sin, as disordered, not as part of a God-given identity. To take "gay" as one's identity is much easier, and when the "celibacy" part becomes hard, then just say you changed your mind: look at all the other professing Christians who think homosexuality is just fine.

I have watched young people with homosexual feelings walk this path, and I tremble for their future as they pronounce "gay" to be just as much part of their identity as *Christ*. Lord have mercy.

"Al, I don't think you quite understand:"

I didn't but I'm getting there. First of all it seems the student wasn't heckling but simply asking a question at an event in which questions are invited. Next, your proposal is getting into real Inquisition stuff. Ask a question at the annual town hall chapel and your head goes on the block. I don't think one is going to run an accredited institution that way these days. Perhaps it would be fair to warn prospective students at the front end that if they appear to question this list in any way they will get disciplined but I don't see that working. Wheaton has a serious reputation, I doubt they are going to blow that up over what will be no big deal in a few years (it already is most places).

I don't envy school administrators who have to deal with a code that is an artifact of an earlier era when schools actually did the in loco parentis thing. To a certain extent I do feel you alls pain but these changes are at this point irreversible.

Re: discipline. I was thinking more of churches but I guess colleges are free to try that if they wish. I'm sincere here for two reasons. One is that private bodies have the absolute right to set standards for their members. The other is that it would be useful for everyone to understand what sort of world you all would have us live in if you all ever got real power. I was responding to your call for churches to get serious on discipline and what would happen if churches actually started holding their members strictly accountable would be churches with a lot fewer supporting members. IMHO, this would be a very good thing. This is one of the few areas where heightening the contradictions would be useful.

I've somewhat revised my opinion on the thrower. Given that he gives the distance as fifteen meters and the apple broke it's likely he was throwing overhand and was aiming for his head. This was a serious assault. The story says discipline is ongoing so hopefully it will be referred to the police.

Anyway and just because we live in the same country I do wish you would seriously ponder your willingness to tolerate physical violence at the mere asking of a question.

Perhaps it would be fair to warn prospective students at the front end that if they appear to question this list in any way they will get disciplined but I don't see that working.

There was no "appear to." There are students at this school that are straight-out saying that homosexual acts are fine, the school's moral code is wrong, etc.

This kind of thing is *in principle* already in some schools' codes of conduct. Several years ago I found a code of conduct for Dordt College (which was only being kinda sorta enforced) that said that students would be in violation for *advocating* sexual immorality, where "sexual immorality" was, of course, defined by other parts of the statement.

That's what this is. It's advocating sexual immorality. And I would be completely happy with making that clear to prospective students. Indeed, I think a lot of parents and many students would want that, given the sums they are paying or that their kids are going into debt to pay allegedly for an orthodox and distinctively Christian education and campus atmosphere.

I am not going to defend Hesse's action at all. I don't have any reason to. However, I will point out that Al is, again, being rather biased in his own remarks on subject, such as

First of all it seems the student wasn't heckling but simply asking a question at an event in which questions are invited.

It wasn't "simply asking a question." Read his words:

In his remarks, Fillion challenged the school’s perspective on sexuality and sacraments, charging that Wheaton’s stance “is not at all universal and depends on a reading of scripture that is incredibly narrow and ignores history, culture and science.”

“Why is it the case that our college…insists on formally condemning and denying equality to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, on spurious theological grounds, yet completely leaves behind baptism and eucharist, which Jesus Christ himself instituted to grow and strengthen the Christian community?” asked Fillion.

Ok, the first part isn't a question at all, it is laying out, with a pretty heavy hand, a point of view. Calling the school's position - a position held by Christians for 2000 years and by Jews for 2000 years before that, "incredibly narrow" and "ignores history" is undoubtedly an extremely contentious approach, with a very harsh tone. It is, in fact, heckling.

Calling the issue in dispute that of "equality" for gays is to explicitly buy into ONE side of the debate at the complete dismissal of the point of view of the other side of the debate - another contentious and biased mode of proceeding. This is not "simply asking a question." This is something completely different. The student wasn't trying to be led to some truth or fact or claim by the administration, he was trying to make a point. And raising hackles in the process, on purpose.

Perhaps it would be fair to warn prospective students at the front end that if they appear to question this list in any way they will get disciplined but I don't see that working.

Obviously you have no feel for how institutional integrity works. I am not talking about conservative integrity, or religious, or political, or whatever. It applies as much to the Jaycees as to the Jesuits: you have core principles that define what the organization exists for. You can certainly permit people to question those core principles - in the appropriate forum, in a reasonable way, with an appropriate objective. Allowing people INSIDE the organization to remain inside the organization with a _persistent_, stated objective of fundamentally changing the core principles (not "people with questions") is nothing other than organizational death. If they don't like what the organization really is at its heart, they are free to leave, and if they won't leave voluntarily it is a positive duty of the leadership to eject them. And freely allowing members to attack the organization in a aggressive, heckling, biased manner in a public forum, without any kind of response of correction (which need not be "silencing"), generally isn't going to serve toward any institutional benefit related to things like "free and honest exchange of opinions" because people will stop trying if one side is just heckling. If a person is "asking questions" but is unable to proffer them in an unbiased, forthright manner open to other points of view, they aren't really asking at the service of truth.

The other is that it would be useful for everyone to understand what sort of world you all would have us live in if you all ever got real power. I was responding to your call for churches to get serious on discipline and what would happen if churches actually started holding their members strictly accountable would be churches with a lot fewer supporting members. IMHO, this would be a very good thing. This is one of the few areas where heightening the contradictions would be useful.

Oddly, Christian churches in the first several centuries practiced exactly what you describe - getting serious on discipline - and grew from a few dozen to many millions in 400 year. Of course, every now and then there were lions used to frighten off the unserious. You have a skewed notion of what actually drives people in religious faith. Not surprising, I suppose.

"Apples are hard."

No they're not, they're soft, and they are weak at their core. That's why they break when they smash into something harder than they are. Like bone surrounded by flesh. Now had Hesse thrown a coconut instead of an apple, you would have a good point. As it is your vengeful attitude towards Hesse comes through in flying colors: re: Hesse ought to be charged with a hate crime. Ridiculous!

The more of this I see, the more I think [link removed, LM] Milo [at Breitbart] has the best secular answer for homosexuality. It's also probably the most offensive to mainstream sentiments, certainly more so than what social conservatives are willing to push. (Milo Yiannopoulos is an openly gay libertarian living in the UK)

Okay, I made an executive decision that the article Mike T linked to is not something I want a link to here. Readers interested in reading a crude (in a variety of ways) article at Breitbart telling male homosexuals that they have a eugenic duty to the race to marry women, father children, and indulge their deviant proclivities in secret, seedy venues at the same time can use the info. in Mike's comment to google the piece for themselves.

In any event, needless to say, I don't think that has much to do with how Christian churches and colleges should handle people like Julie Rodgers and the defiant students she was counseling and enabling.

It applies as much to the Jaycees as to the Jesuits: you have core principles that define what the organization exists for.

This reminded me of two presumably ancient jokes.
What are the three things God does not know? (Catholic version)
1) What the Jesuits are thinking.
2) What the Franciscans are doing.
3) How many orders of nuns there are.

What are the three things God does not know? (Protestant version)
1) What process theologians are thinking.
2) Who's in charge of the Baptists.
3) What the Pentecostals are saying.

"Okay, I made an executive decision that the article Mike T linked to is not something I want a link to here."

Excellent call, we agree for the second time. Mike, using an entrainment site as a serious source of anything will lead to tears.

"No they're not, they're soft, and they are weak at their core."

I'd describe it as less dense but as long as we are dealing with the centers of fruit I'll point out that coconuts are liquid at their core. I grow six varieties of apple (spans the season from Akane thru Honeycrisp to mystery apple). The arc as you likely know goes from blossom to mush. I relegate apples that are too soft to bruise human tissue to the compost. Well before that they go to the deer or the horses. A crisp eatable, not (yuck) mealy, apple is capable of causing damage if thrown.

"Like bone surrounded by flesh."

Terry, "Your honor, I only bruised him," isn't going to cut it as a defense against battery. I found his note, besides being incriminating, to be arrogant and somewhat menacing. Had he written that he had lost it and regretted it, etc. some sort of diversion program would be appropriate. As things stand he would be useful as un exemple pour les autres.

Tony, all you've done is to point out that he may have asked an overlong question filled with dubious history. Wow! I've never experienced that at a town hall type gathering. Being pompous and annoying isn't the same as heckling. A college isn't a church so perhaps different standards should be applied when dealing with doubt.

While Baylor, with its size, debt, and academic/athletic aspirations is clearly a lost cause, a small school like Wheaton is free to do what its trustees wish. Your problem is that trustees and administration types are of the class that wants-this-all-to-go-away-so-we-can-get-back-to-business (sort of like railroad presidents back in 1902).

If you believe that strict accountability will grow churches, go for it. That's an experiment we should run.

Al, what actually inspires you to persist in your concern-trolling? Seriously, why are you still around?

According to your pedantic logic as implied here, I can discredit the cause of Greek defiance of German austerity, since somewhere in Europe an anti-austerity demonstrator took a swing with a stick at a Teutonic cop. Or Uber should rule every European city because Paris cabbies are lawless brigands when they get outcompeted by apps and algorithms. But of course, just like the Wheaton Collage Apple of Outrage rabbit hole you intend to sends us down, the Greek Stickwhack is also irrelevant to the substance of the Eurozone question of political economy. And French cabbie thuggery is largely irrelevant to the details at law at stake in these sharing economy disputes. So why the rabbit hole except to befuddle and disrupt?

As a commenter, Al, your purpose seems to be the extinction of communication. With a side-dish of Bear-Grylls-of-the-Internet outdoorsmen bluster. You're a regular Aldo Leopold. Sheesh.

Hi Paul, sorry to get you all sputtering and analogy challenged but I'm fascinated at the acceptance of violence-as-long-as-it's-on-my-side that this Wheaton episode reveals as well as some folks' desire to see disciplinary action against a student for asking an annoying question at a meeting set up for folks to ask questions. If Hesse had walked down to the questioner and slugged him would that be OK? Throwing a hard object from a balcony into the crowd below is stupid and irresponsible. It's also illegal. Blowing it off because the thrower is on your side is way revealing.

I assumed at first that Lydia, understandably impassioned by recent events, simply hadn't thought through the potential downsides of flinging hard objects from a balcony into a crowd (the whole episode was orthogonal to the main topic of the post) and, later, that a botanically challenged Terry was buying apples past their prime but now we have you also minimizing a violent criminal act. Remember, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

Your analogies have me at a loss. No where have I indicated that an assault by that one person discredits non-violent objections to the current arc of LGBT matters. I believe most folks are amazed/appalled at the arc of Teh Gay over the past few years. I regularly listen to the local RC radio station so I get level of upset. I would expect social conservatives to be dismayed and dispirited as these changes and more to come are seemingly irreversible. It's not unreasonable though for one to expect social conservatives to continue to support a civil society.

I am concerned that Mike, who presumably votes, takes Breitbart seriously - after all, a misinformed voter is a dangerous voter but I'm not the least bit concerned about the effects of greater accountability, no concern at all.

BTW, One of the great things about being on the left these days is that we don't have to rely on deceptive analogies - the numbers are in and austerity has simply failed.

Well, who can believe it but Al didn't answer my questions, stated in clear phrases in my last comment?

Jeez. Never saw that coming.

"Austerity has failed." Which means Al renounces tax increases? Yes?

"I'm fascinated at the acceptance of violence" -- spare us your fascination and just go away.

The only substantive phrase in Al's entire reply to me is thia: "the whole [apple] episode was orthogonal to the main topic of the post."

Agreed. So back off the threadjack.

Well, getting back to the actual thread here,

The most depressing thing about this whole saga is that Wheaton is trying to hold some kind of principled line. Wheaton is on the relatively good end of Christian colleges from a sexually orthodox point of view. I mean, at least they tried to do some kind of repair on the situation by hiring Rodgers. But they weren't willing and able to say that they'd made a big mistake in allowing Refuge in the first place, to disband it, to start disciplining students and professors who are advocating homosexual acts,

I too shudder at what some colleges, like Wheaton, consider as "trying".

However, I wouldn't be surprised to find that some of the ones who DO try to dial back and recapture their earlier stance, (enforcing honest Christian morality), are hoist on their own foolishness. At least in some cases, we have to think that liberals will argue (in court, as well as elsewhere) that the very act of loosening standards once (yes, letting a student group like Refuge start) PROVES that they didn't really mean it when they claimed that this rigid moral concept is all part of their religion. Hey, if it was part of their religion, then they couldn't possibly have started Refuge with students who openly professed gay theory. So this later effort to crack down is really just homophobia blah blah blah.

It's not a valid argument, but it will be made anyway. So, yes, part of the moral courage of carrying out your convictions is admitting you done wrong even though you will be mis-represented about it. You try to set the record straight, but there will be the media contemptuous of integrity and just yearning to call Christians lying hypocrites, yet again. The sins against truth in our culture are as varied as those against chastity.

In any event, needless to say, I don't think that has much to do with how Christian churches and colleges should handle people like Julie Rodgers and the defiant students she was counseling and enabling.

It actually does, if you care to get outside of your comfort zone. It's a secular argument that even the most "pro-gay" societies in the history of advanced civilizations have never felt it necessary to tell homosexuals that they can resign themselves to being slaves to their orientation. It also is a good reminder that said societies never tolerated homosexuals attempting to subvert or destroy the primary societal institutions which were ordered toward heterosexuality and procreation.

In other words, to call Wheaton bigoted, you must also call Sparta bigoted which anyone who isn't a SJW at heart would find hard to swallow once you educate them on just how "pro-gay" Sparta was.

Excellent call, we agree for the second time. Mike, using an entrainment site as a serious source of anything will lead to tears.

All American political sites are to some degree entertainment sites. The irony is that it's the ones that are self-aware of that fact tend to be the ones that actually offer the most interesting editorials (regardless of their political leanings) and are more reliable on reporting the news.

I mean, at least they tried to do some kind of repair on the situation by hiring Rodgers. But they weren't willing and able to say that they'd made a big mistake in allowing Refuge in the first place, to disband it, to start disciplining students and professors who are advocating homosexual acts,

There's nothing good about hiring someone like Rodgers. You can be assured that anyone who claims to be a Christian and is open about homosexuality doesn't consider it a genuine cross they must bear unless they carry it openly to encourage other homosexuals to live in faithful celibacy. Letting someone like her in is a deliberate invitation to heterodoxy, and it's generally how SJWs get their feet in the door of institutions.

What Wheaton should do now is fire the people who brought her in as a warning that there will be no tolerance for inviting people who should be reasonably foreseen as not holding Wheaton's values. This is almost certainly not a case of "sorry, we honestly didn't know" and even if it were, firing those responsible would have the positive effect of showing others like them that failing to take due diligence seriously and taking risks with the sort of people that are hired will not be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated and negligence cannot be targeted because that is how the Long March starts in your institution.

Letting someone like her in is a deliberate invitation to heterodoxy, and it's generally how SJWs get their feet in the door of institutions.

I agree with you there, and there are even worse examples. I don't have time to get into it right now, but over on Facebook I've been following some information about a woman named Karen Swallow Prior who is evidently now associated in some way with the ERLC (committee of the Southern Baptists) and gets glowing, gushing, praise from none other than Russell Moore, but who is _very_ questionably orthodox on this issue. Not that I have considered Moore generally reliable for a long time, as my many criticisms of him have shown, but on this issue Karen Swallow Prior is definitely much more dubious than I had ever suspected Moore was. So this is another example, like Rodgers.

And this is why I have opposed the CHIs so much. I think their influence is very pernicious. I used to think they were all in good faith in advocating celibacy, but I've come to have some doubts about that given the *extremely* loosey-goosey approach they take to groups that are openly and entirely in favor of active homosexualism.

As far as who should be fired for bringing in the fifth column, to me it all comes back to forming the group. I want to know who sold the bill of goods that this student group did not inherently constitute a compromise of the school's principles. Somewhere there was a middleman who was putting on the spin for the higher-ups, and I want to know who it was. Now, it might have been Justin Massey, who was a student and has since graduated, so he can't be fired. But some fool bought the line on the other side--that this is just a support group, blah, blah. Was it up at the level of the president, or where, exactly? The original article on the formation of "Refuge" was clear enough, heaven knows, so who pushed through "Refuge"?

(Btw, and no, I'm not going to debate this with Al, I spiked the link because it was vulgar, weird, and questionably relevant, not because it was from Breitbart.)

My guess is that you'll find that the people who enabled her also quietly hold such views. That's the most plausible explanation for why someone would think that forming a campus group whose purpose is anathema to the school's moral code should happen. It defies common sense to believe that she just came in under honest circumstances and created this problem without tacit support from others. Aside from those who hired her being case studies in the meaning of "useful idiot," it doesn't leave much room. Either way, they should be fired. Even if they were the epitome of gullibility, there has to be a consequence for such an epic failure of leadership.

(Btw, and no, I'm not going to debate this with Al, I spiked the link because it was vulgar, weird, and questionably relevant, not because it was from Breitbart.)

The first two perhaps, but not the third since it's a secular observation that even societies like Sparta expected men with mainly homosexual inclinations to get a grip and be fathers and husbands. Implied in the need for this campus group is that what homosexuals need is to be accepted in their sexuality instead of being told they need to master it either in celibacy or by finding someone of the opposite sex with a low libido with whom they can have something resembling a real marriage with children produced in accord with the natural law.

Setting aside the wisdom of that second option, the incontrovertible fact is that even very "pro-gay" societies in the past (Sparta being much farther along than us) had no concept that homosexual inclinations meant one was incapable of heterosexual conduct in accord with nature and society's needs.

just like we all struggle to know how to interpret Scripture on countless controversial topics

Struggle to interpret, not so much. Struggle to live up to, yes.

The only "sexual minority" in the contemporary USA seems to be married-never-divorced-heterosexual couples.

(though I’ll add that our public obsession with total strangers’ sex lives does strike me as strange)

What strikes me as even stranger is total strangers' obsession with demanding my public approval of their sex lives.

What strikes me as even stranger is total strangers' obsession with demanding my public approval of their sex lives.

Boy, ain't that the truth! Just out of the blue, for no apparent reason, they have to tell you they are gay, and then they wait for you to fall all over yourself with some reaction, and unless you say you approve, they are prepared to slash and burn you for being a 'phobe.

I have to say, though, that this phenomenon seems to be less common today (in my experience) than it was 5 years ago. Are they tired of it? Or is it just that so few rise to the bait anymore that it isn't worth the effort?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.