Advanced Search

Anti-Gay Group Criticizes Wheaton College Speaker

By
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Feb. 20 2008 10:36 AM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

Corrections appended An evangelical leader was invited to speak at Wheaton College Tuesday evening about his new book on Christian engagement in society, but instead drew criticisms from a group that accused the speaker of supporting the homosexual agenda.

Jim Wallis, founder of the progressive social justice group Sojourners and Call to Renewal, was the featured speaker at Wheaton College’s Center for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE). He was invited to campus as part of a series of speakers on the general theme of Christian moral engagement in society, and in particular, in politics and the upcoming presidential election.

Wallis, who was visiting the highly-respected evangelical institution as part of his book tour, was criticized by the founder of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality for legitimizing legal recognition of homosexual relationships as a “justice issue” in his new book, The Great Awakening.

"We find it hard to believe that somebody who believes in the Bible – and the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination – could call support for so-called 'civil rights' based on egregiously sinful behavior,” said Peter LaBarbera, to OneNewsNow. “How you can call that 'a justice issue'?"

Dr. Michael Brown, director of Charlotte-based Coalition of Conscience, also found fault with Wallis’ logic for supporting gay unions, as well as with the popular argument that points to Jesus’ compassion for marginalized people to justify the lifestyle.

“Wallis and others seem to have lost sight of the fact that homosexual practice is always wrong, representing a fundamental violation of God’s order, and they appear to have forgotten that God’s ways (which, from creation, have included male-female unions only) are always best,” Brown argued.

He acknowledged that Jesus “rebukes a lot of our stiff religiosity, a religiosity that is afraid to get its hands dirty.” But said the Gospel shows “Jesus did not simply accept the outcasts, He changed them.”

“Yes, He touched the leper, but that touch healed him. Yes, He ate with the prostitutes and tax-collectors (who were notoriously dishonest), but He didn’t encourage them to be better prostitutes and more proficient tax-collectors, He transformed their lives and brought them to repentance,” Brown pointed out.

Brown called on Christians to not just accept, but to practice “transformational inclusion” and heal people.

LaBarbera, although differing with Wallis over gay unions, agrees with him that Christians can be too narrow-minded in what issues they care about. He believes Christians should be more concerned about caring for the poor. However, LaBarbera argues that when it comes to homosexuality, there is no issue of being too narrow-minded and that homosexuality is clearly an immoral choice.

Correction: Thursday, February 21, 2008:

An article on Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2008, about an anti-homosexual group criticizing Wheaton College guest speaker Jim Wallis for his support of gay rights incorrectly reported that Peter LaBarbera, the founder of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, had requested to Wheaton College that another voice be presented alongside Wallis. The Christian Post confirmed with Wheaton College on Thursday that the request was made on LaBarbera’s blog and not directly to the school.

The article also unclearly reported the purpose of Jim Wallis’ appearance at the Wheaton College event and gave the impression he was invited to promote the moral acceptance of homosexual conduct. The Christian Post confirmed with the college that Wallis was there to speak on the relationship between the Christian faith and engagement in social and political issues.

Wheaton College confirmed that its moral stance is “clear” in accordance with Scripture that homosexual conduct is immoral, although it does not have an official stance on specific public policy issues.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
blessedman
  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:12 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
QT, I'm not much of a debator (too time-consuming) but I would like to make some comments. Please don't deluge me with replies like you did Chris. I don't have the time or desire for that. But I did want to give you some things to consider. Ok?

You said that the early church would view the idea of Jesus being God as idolatry. The challenge in the New Testament is that the early Christians were repeatedly told by Jesus that He was God. Jesus even took the divine name upon Himself. Then after the resurrection, even doubting Thomas was willing to state categorically to Jesus "My Lord and My God" - knowing full well as a Jew what that meant.

However, they wouldn't see it as Idolatry, for two reasons: First, Jesus didn't claim to be ANOTHER God, but to be Yahway in flesh. So it wasn't turning to a new God, but recognizing their already-accepted God.

That would fit with the Old Testament concept of God coming in other forms - in the Old Testament, it was not idolatry to state that God came in the form of an angel several times. (Jews even had a special name for when God took angelic form.) Idolatry is with another God, not the SAME God revealing Himself differently.

Whether God came as an angel in the Old Testament, or as a human in the New, as long as they were convinced that it was the same God, no idolatry would exist in their minds.

Secondly, once they understood Yahway better, they did change many of their customs and ways. The New Testament gives a lot of info about the clash, and how hard it was for some Jews to make the transition. But Jews did change, accepting the New covenant as better than the Old (Hebrews) because it fulfilled the Old.
blessedman
  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:54 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
I guess I've changed on this issue. More and more I see wisdom in a more libertarian viewpoint. It's not about whether it's a sin, it's about whether God gave humanity the ability to make choices, good or bad. You can be absolutely against sin, but not believe it is right to pass laws against it. Nowhere do I see Jesus pointing his followers toward controlling others in such a way.

Just because something is sinful does NOT mean God want's us to force others to not do it.

The day in which Christians make the laws is gone. Sadly, instead of insisting on laws that were open for disagreement, we pushed for a "we are right, so let's legislate it" type of self-centered governance. Now that we are no longer in power and receeding, that attitude has been passed to others to use against us!

Case in point: Christian marriage. It USED to be that we could marry, and the laws would support a Christian marriage viewpoint (very hard to divorce, for example). But those days are gone. We will probably never have a legal version of a Christian marriage again. But this could have been avoided had we allowed people to choose in the first place. We could have had a marriage legal system where I could CHOOSE to be in a Christian-based marriage, while someone else choose a no-fault divorce style of marriage. Not either-or, but both. Then you could choose God's way, or not God's way.

But now, I DO NOT have a choice!! It doesn't exist. You can not choose a Godly marriage covenant legally in the USA. All or nothing thinking eventually means you get ... nothing.

Freedom for OTHERS to choose is the only way to protect OUR freedon to choose. Freedom for others to do it ANOTHER way is the only way we can be free to do it GOD'S way.

But it's probably too late for that now.
QT
  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:49 pm
  • : 1
  • : 2
  • Flag
It's like saying that the model for civilization will continue throughout history to be based on the curse G-d pronounces on Adam(man) and Eve(woman)- in other words,not all men toil by the sweat of their face to earn a living and put bread on their table, and not all women will face the pain of childbirth as it says in Genesis 3.
QT
  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:49 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
<<<Possibly the strongest evidence is that God only made one man and one woman, if He wanted it another way, He would have made it another way.>>>

Proves nothing; God includes the story of Adam and Eve in the Genesis historical record because God intended to populate the earth, not because God intended to forbid every marriage model different from the Adam and Eve model.
QT
  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:47 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
<<<The position in the Bible is abundantly clear, and just because some men did it, and God allowed it, doesn't make it right or ideal.>>>

The position which you choose to ignore, is that the book of Genesis is an explanation of origins. It is not a dissertation on marriage relationships. God asserts the importance of human relationships, and Genesis is not making a statement for or against the one man, one woman "model."

<<It is disengenuous to simply say, well Abraham did it, so that means God says it is right for him and all men forever!!!! >>>

I'm not saying that. I didn't say that. I never said that. What I did accomplish provided legitimate sources which were the basis of my argument- men who were polygamous and that it was culturally and religiously acceptible by Biblical standards.
QT
  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:23 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
PART 1
<<<First of all, Paul was very closely related to Peter and the apostles and even confronted them to their faces about the things you mentioned. In any case, you cannot just say, "Oh well Paul is not relevant because he doesn't talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT" Paul was against idolatry as well, you should read the epistles.>>>


Where do I state in my argument," Paul is not relevant because he doesn’t talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT?" A good portion of Paul's message is lifted from the OT and reinterpreted- need I remind you, that it's what the Jews have as a point of REFERENCE. The Bible comes from TAKANH. Christianity is the off-shoot of Judaism, not the other way around!
And furthermore, where did I state "Paul was not against idolatry?" If you’re going to make accusations like that about my points, please show me the proof that that is what I said.
And I have read the epistles. Is it because I disagree with your interpretation of the epistles that you assume I haven’t read them, or are you just trying to bully me off this discussion because I have presented some truth and properly defended my points?
QT
  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:21 pm
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
PART 2
And another thing, why do you keep making assumptions about me and the things I have written? You haven't actually made a point against anything I've said- you have merely talked around them and closed with, "one man one woman," "God said it therefore it's ordained and if he wanted it any other way he would have done so."
You know Chris333, that doesn't settle it, because if G-d ordained just Adam and Eve as the one man one woman model you've just limited G-d to an understanding that is human in design. But worse still, you are ignoring that you are deferring this matter to "SILENCE" in the same manner those who support that Jesus wasn't anti-gay unions because he was "silent" on the issue.
Chris333
  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:48 am
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
QT,

First of all, Paul was very closely related to Peter and the apostles and even confronted them to their faces about the things you mentioned. In any case, you cannot just say, "Oh well Paul is not relevant because he doesn't talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT" Paul was against idolatry as well, you should read the epistles.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that many of the ancient hebrews were polygamous. Solomon had a great many wives. The point is, every time a polygamous relationship is listed in the Bible, there are definite problems associated with it. God made only one man and one woman (which is clearly the ideal, otherwise He would have made more wives for Adam), and it is a bit difficult for a husband and several wives to become one person. Paul called for deacons to be the husband of one wife, there is no mention of polygamy in the NT, and Paul addresses husbands and wives in the singular. Polygamy only came after the fall, and it can be seen as a corruption of what was good (a corruption that God tolerated, much like the institution of kings over the Israelites, but a corruption nonetheless).

In any case, I could care less with what cultural groups throughout history decide is right. The SBC could come out with a decree tomorrow that polygamy is ok and it would not make a lick of difference to me. The position in the Bible is abundantly clear, and just because some men did it, and God allowed it, doesn't make it right or ideal. It is disengenuous to simply say, well Abraham did it, so that means God says it is right for him and all men forever!!!! Possibly the strongest evidence is that God only made one man and one woman, if He wanted it another way, He would have made it another way. (You seem to be stuck on Jewish and OT customs, and while I find it interesting I do not understand how it is relevant to the discussion)
QT
  • Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:39 pm
  • : 1
  • : 4
  • Flag
You realize Chris333, The Jews who followed Jesus and became what is commonly or traditionally understood to be the "Early Church" ie. The Jesus Movement, The Jerusalem Church and The Nazarenes did not abandon their Jewish religious traditions, religious customs, feasts, dietary laws or their devotion to Torah. The mainstream Jewish community(and yes, even those who subsequently followed Jesus after his death) held that acceptance of Jesus as a DIETY(which was a completely Pauline point of view) is antithetical to the principles of Judaism, because it would involve the abolition of the Jewish law and customs and would be considered IDOLATRY.
QT
  • Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:34 pm
  • : 1
  • : 3
  • Flag
PART 1
<<<However, QT is dead wrong if he/she thinks that marriage was not considered a covenant fully binding, only between man and woman, and considered much more sacred than we consider it today. The early church was clearly pro one man/ one woman marriage, and the Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman. God originally instituted it as such, every marriage with more than one woman had many and often serious problems, and the entire idea that man and woman become one does not allow for polygamous relationships. Two men or two women is not a possibility either. >>>

Pretty presumptive of you Chris333. How can I be dead wrong about something which seemingly exists or is merely an assumption on <<your>>part.

You said, "The Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman..." How do you deal with this statement?
"Scriptural evidence indicates that polygamy among the ancient Hebrews, though not extremely common, was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged. The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and David, with little or no further remark on their polygamy as such. The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife; Deuteronomy 21:15-17, which states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here