May 23 issue
Wrong inclusion
By Ronald Friesen Manheim, Pa.“Goshen Students Urge Inclusion of Gay Faculty” (May 9) saddens me very much. How much better it would be to have a heading such as “Students urge Holy Spirit-filled and evangelistic faculty.” The article quotes a Goshen professor who writes of “extraordinarily gifted [GLBTQ] students.” I do not believe this area of “inclusion” comes from a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Some equate the sin of homosexuality with others like adultery, greed and gossiping. Why not a headline like: “Students urge inclusion of adulterous, greedy, gossiping faculty”?
What kind of witness is this to the unsaved world? Are souls saved from hell by this activity? Oh, many now are not so certain that there is a place like that, right? Come judgment day, will there be evidence that this issue has bought people into the kingdom of God? Or will it have taken time away from witnessing to the saving blood of Jesus Christ? God is gracious, merciful and forgiving, but intolerant of sin.
Comments
-
oh snap, and judgment day is coming up in a few days!!!
Well, I guess I'll stay behind in solidarity with all those gay people who God created flawed and tossed into the reject pile.
I might have good company if all the greedy and gossipy people get left behind too, not to mention all those high-horse folks who never quite understood that commandment about love.
Yep, the party's gonna go on down here.
Dear God, if you get lonely up there all by yourself you're sure welcome to come on down and join us. No need to bring anything. Well, we could use some grace and mercy if you are able to pick some up on the way. We have a surplus of intolerance, so don't worry about that. It's not the same without you. Please come!
Ronald, I am sorry but you need to be called out. You have implied that glbtq people are like adulterors. I find that immature and offensive.
-
Ummm, maybe it's because all the adulterous, greedy, gossiping, hypocritic, gluttonous faculty people are already included, along with the committed, honest, hard-working, brilliant ones. And snap to you, too, Joseph P!
-
Just a few questions to further thought, not intolerance as suggested:
If the post of Ronald was so "immature and offensive" to suggest adultery be compared to GLTB activities than consulting Webster's Dictionary one must assume that our very definition of these terms as used in the english language must be re-calibrated, no? Is that what we are suggesting as a church? The Confession of Faith states clearly that we (Anabaptist Mennonites) believe any relations outside a 'marriage' relationship are inappropriate.
So if I read the issues in MWR posters clearly, we are now arguing over the definition of marriage. Or more coherent, marriage as understood for centuries in western culture and during biblical times. Are we to be so 'counter-cultural' that we are now disagreeing with what words actually imply and mean? If this relativism is truly the case, can a person predisposed to violence rightly change his personal definition of assault and/or murder to accept his proclivity at birth? Who truly has authority over his decision? How about someone born with inherent temptation to lie? Someone born with the temptation to marry many and multiple women and/or men? Are they to be exempted from societal norms and definitions? Or, are there not enough of those people to adequately form a 'movement'?
Is sexuality the only character trait we are born with? And if so, how did we arrive at this assumption?
Just a few questions....
For reference: (From Merriam Webster)
Marriage (c. 14th century) - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Adultery- voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery
-
Yup. We were arguing about the definition of marriage, culture, and decency when white people and black people "started" falling in love, too. For that matter, we argued about the definition of "humanity" when white people felt they were justified by culture, custom, and the Bible in owning black people for slaves.
Now you will forgive me for lumping these so-called "Biblical," "cultural," and dictionary arguments against GLBT inclusion and/or marriage in with the same tripe that justified slavery, apartheid, segregation, Antisemitism, sexism, racial hierarchy, all the while while fighting interracial marriage as something unnatural and unholy.
For what it's worth, here is the Oxford American Dictionary's definition: marriage |ˈmarij| noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. • a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage. • figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel. 2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit. Oh, snap!
-
In trying to address the issue without petty sarcasm I seem to have violated the tone of our mature debate. Sorry about that JPR.
Sarcasm aside, the question stands: if we are to modify our definitions of marriage, love etc. we are apparently doing so on the basis that sexuality is one of the only character traits that is biological and innate at birth (so say supporters of this change).
How does one prove this? What other character traits are then potentially born into a person? And what part of the bible says x, y or z is ok/moral so long as you are born that way? Meaning: IF humans are born homosexual, on what basis do we modify our morality to reflect that fact once proven? We don't use this criteria on other issues, moral or otherwise. We sometimes say "John was a born womanizer" but we don't use that to defend his behavior as newly moral even if he has an inate proclivity to sleep with lots of women. That's his cross to bear in this life.
Skin color is absolutely a born trait and has been proven factually/scientifically to be inconsequential with no difference between races.....comparing the two issues is not 'apples to apples' as many want to infer.
That seems to be the argument as I see it. I don't see how we get past a loggerhead like that both as a church and a society.
-
BJW, as your definition states, adultery is when a married person cheats on their spouse. Frankly I do not accept that you can't tell the moral difference between breaking a sacred marital bond and merely having sex outside of the prevailing Christian/Western concept of marriage.
There is a particularly heinous stereotype that needs to be dispelled and rejected by all Christians (pro-gay and pro-traditional-marriage alike), which equates homosexuality with promiscuity. Don't ask me to explain the difference. Figure it out.
I'll also note that you disproved your own point. The definitions you quote say that you have to be heterosexual to be married and that you have to be married to commit adultery. Therefore, according to your definitions it is impossible for homosexuals to be adulterers.
Finally, yes, according to the Confession of Faith homosexual unions are inappropriate. Again, please don't ask me to explain the difference between "inappropriate" and "adulterous." Figure it out.
-
BJW,
-
Is your sexual orientation innate?
-
Sexual orientation is NOT a character trait. Is your hair color a character trait?
-
No one's trying to change the definition of love, just of marriage.
-
Neither are we modifying our morality, we're taking the same morality we have for heterosexuality and applying it also to homosexuality.
-
-
I can assure you that the only instance of sarcasm in my entire post was the "Oh, snap!" at the end. It seems to be a theme in this discussion.
If one accepts the the findings of myriad studies from multiple angles and methodologies that sexual orientation is a matter of nature, then the matter becomes very similar to race.
From there, no one that I am aware of is advocating the broad acceptance of multiple partners, so the analogy to John the womanizer simply does not apply. I am sure that the current standard of choosing one partner and joining together with him or her for the lifelong commitment of marriage will prevail then as now.
Yes, as a church and a society we will get past this loggerhead, just as we have been able to move past loggerheads of racism and sexism, at least as an institution. God only knows there are all too many racists and sexists among us, but they are no longer viewed with credibility or dignity. Indicators are that the same will be the case for the issue of sexual orientation. It is merely a question of how long we embarrass ourselves and continue to harm others in prolonging the transition.
-
If studies lead to conclusions that contradict what we have in Scripture, then those studies should be studied to see if they have problems with presuppositions leaning toward the conclusions that are obtained, and to see if the studies employ hard science. If testimonies are given that a homosexual tendency cannot be overcome, it is not fair to immediately conclude that the tendency is innate. The teaching of Scripture on the overcoming power of Christ must also be considered. If the studies are based on testimonies, are testimonies included of people who have been a part of such things as "Love Won Out?" What do such testimonies have to say? If such testimonies are not included, are the studies balanced and fair?
-
My point was not to equate adultery with homosexuality necessarily on an 'apples to apples' basis but to point out that it is in no way "immature and offensive" to be suggested. Both are still, and have been for centuries, considered violations of moral and spiritual laws. Both are considered sins of sexual nature, and both can be (in certain instances and for certain people) natural temptations for both sexes. It seems rude and simplistic to antagonize a fellow commenter like that.
The typical tack everywhere is used here repeatedly: equate sexuality with race, bring up fond memories of civil rights battles and silence opposition by making opposition sound unreasonably cold and harsh for not loving everyone equally. I feel like it is not nearly this simple and shouldn't be when overthrowing two millennium of human understanding.
Perhaps everyone will have to agree to disagree. But for the life of me I cannot see how polygamy can be outlawed if homosexual marriages become legal.....is the sole deciding factor monogamy now, regardless of sex? What biblical or social context is that now based on? It seems we are making the rules up as we go at this point as a society................
Comment on the article Wrong inclusion
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
