This plus some recent comments on FaceBook by classmates and friends got me thinking and writing. In some of the comments and much of the national dialog, one of the phrases I've heard used is that we need to "affirm the dignity" of all people (in this case gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc.).
Affirming the dignity of a person is a very nebulous concept. I'm not sure what it means or how it would be practiced in the context in which it is being used. In my mind, letting someone know that God loves them (each and every person) so much that He wants a relationship with them and sent His Son to die for them to enable that relationship is the heart of the Gospel.
In Dr. Burks's recent chapel address on the issue (video embedded below) I believe he stated something very similar. (As with all Youtube videos, please don't read the comments).
However, in the way Harding interprets scripture, homosexual activity is sinful just as other forms of sexual immorality are sinful. Therefore according to the university rules it is behavior that if discovered will be subject to disciplinary action, just as any other breaking of the rules.
You may debate whether the interpretation of scripture is correct, but it is fully consistent with their beliefs. Affirming behavior that you understand to be sinful would be inconsistent.
Jesus loved everyone, but when he encountered people engaged in sinful behavior, he didn't say "That's okay, just keep on being that way and I'll still love you." He said, "Go and sin no more." Then he died showing how much he loved them whatever choice they made.
I work with all kinds of people each day that engage in behaviors I don't myself engage in or often approve of and I treat them respectfully and kindly. I don't make it a point to tell them all their flaws or how sinful they are being. Such things rarely come up. But were I to have influence in their lives to inject my own opinion, it would be wrong of me to just say everything is ok.
I've rambled on too long and I know this is not a popular opinion, but I felt it on my heart to write something. I hope that Harding will continue to look for ways to minister to every single person attending or on whom they have influence. It is also my prayer that they never stop seeking to uphold the standards to which God has called us to be holy and pure in His sight.
4 comments:
I understand you are attempting to affirm what you believe to be the biblical teaching on the matter and trying to be kind to all. However, I do believe the situation is far more complex than stated.
First the position of the blog post assumes the most conservative position of biblical inerrancy (BI), to the extent that whatever Paul said must be from God. We should never be dogmatic about issues undergirded with a weak basis. One can only be sure of something to the extent that one has objective empirical knowledge about the fact in question. I think any objective outsider observer can see that there is no objective basis to determine if Paul is inspired. Though much ink has been spilled on the issue. Inspiration is something accepted on faith and without empirical data supporting it. Therefore, any conclusions we may draw from Paul's writing should keep in mind this fact. Therefore, we need to determine another means of assessing the situation.
In this case science and reason can be brought to the table and give us a clearer understanding. Even among conservative biblical scholars the role of sources outside of scripture are known to be legitimate sources for epistemology. In this case we know empirically that animals do indeed sometimes express homosexual behavior, additionally we know from genetics that homosexuality has been linked to certain genes. Therefore, homosexuality is a naturally occurring state and is not a position someone "chooses."
Knowing that homosexuality is genetic, not a choice, and knowing that we don't actually know if Paul spoke for God or even if he did if we understand him correctly we should be more humble in stating things as emphatically and dogmatically as Harding, ACU, and Baylor did.
Additionally Dr. Burks statement was at best misleading and at worse a purposeful distortion of the truth. Let any homosexual couple be caught holding hands in a swing and see what happens. Homosexuals are defiantly discriminated against.
Anonymous, I appreciate your comments. There are a lot of presuppositions and foundational concepts in my post and in the views and policies of Harding and others. I was basing my argument on the internal consistency of the actions. If we are to remove the pillars and assumptions we can go all the way back to "Is there a God?" But starting with where Harding is with the Bible as the innerant word of God, Paul and the other writers being inspired in what they wrote, the Bible we have today is what was originally written and intended, and our interpretations of certain passages are true...(that's a lot of foundataion) Harding is acting within a consistent framework. That was the point of my posting. Any of those points can be debated in and of themselves as to their accuracy. But at the end of the day, very little would be achieved in terms of changing anyone's opinions.
As for biology and genetics, there are many things that we as flawed humans have to change about ourselves to be holy before God. Much that goes against our natural and learned tendencies. So back to our assumptions, if homosexuality is sinful to God, this does not preclude it having genetic or environmental components.If God wanted us to be just the way we were, He wouldn't have had to send His Son to die for us. Again, there is a lot of foundation and beliefs in this framework.
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Matt.
I think what really needs to be debated at this point is not the validity of scripture or the genetic possibilities of homosexuality. What it really boils down to is whether we as a country are still willing to believe in free speech.
There is a fabulous quote from the movie The American President which (paraphrased) states that true freedom is being willing to accept the right of someone to speak even when what they say is 100% contrary to what you believe.
If Harding is a private school, you choose to attend and accept their rules. You can also choose not to attend, thus not subjecting yourself to their rules. This is really the heart of the debate.
The homosexual community at large is generally unwilling to accept that they will not be and are not accepted by everyone. Freedom of speech says that I don't have to agree with their choices any more than they must agree with mine. I do however, believe I must treat them with the same respect and kindness I would to anyone who is involved in a less-than-perfect life. And for the record, that is all of us.
Harding, ACU, Baylor, Oklahoma Christian, and Ohio Valley are private universities which have as their basis the belief that the New Testament is the inspired word of God as revealed to men for purposes of inspiration, teaching, rebuking, and edification. These schools do not hide their beliefs. They do not spring it on you once you have arrived on campus. Their's is a very open and public acceptance that their authority for decisions rests solidly with the belief that the New Testament is their guide.
It is a choice. Choose to go, or choose not to go. But accept that America is founded on the belief that we do not have to look like everyone else. Champion the freedoms which allow us so many opportunities and options.
Post a Comment