April 20, 2006

38 Comments

1. I am a Wheaton grad, class of 86.
   I posted this response to Litfin at www.anagnosticchristian.com, but was pointed to this site by a reader (thanks to Ariah).

   Dear Dr. Litfin,

   I just received your email message regarding the gay group coming to campus this week. I feel I must respond, however quickly, and hope you will read this message, but fear you will not because it is a mass mailing and your staff is probably taking care of the details.

   After I received my degree from Wheaton, I went on to get an MA in teaching (the University of St. Thomas) and an MA in theology from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN. I felt Wheaton prepared me well (BA philosophy with English) for my advanced studies, and I would never trade my time at Wheaton for anything. Having said that…

   I am not gay and am happily married with two children, but I have come to believe that Wheaton College and evangelicals as a whole are on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to homosexuality and Biblical interpretation around this subject.

   As Frederic Buechner, one of your Wade Collection authors, has said in my hearing, “The Bible condemns lust, it never condemns love, whether heterosexual or homosexual.” Scripture simply does not comprehend committed relationships between people of the same sex, but condemns homosexual lust within the contexts of “pagan” religious practices and debauchery. For that matter, it also condemns heterosexual lust as well. I think many of your Wade writers would see the issue in a similar way.

   Conservatives should, to be consistent, treat divorced people with the same attitudes they treat gays. We have Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage in Matthew. And they are strong words. We are also told in the Old Testament not to loan money at interest, but evangelicals accept bankers, willy-nilly, in their churches. Once scripture was quoted to justify slavery and prejudice, but we learned to grow beyond this.

   My point is that to assume Wheaton’s response is the “balanced Christian response,” as your email suggests, is to exclude very many persons of Christian faith who interpret the Bible differently. I am sad that Wheaton is not a place that gay persons feel welcomed, as I knew gay students in the closet when I was there. They could not come forward for fear of persecution.

   I am praying for the day when the powers that be at Wheaton really listen to another point of view and do not assume they have THE Christian answer for all the vicissitudes of life. What if Wheaton students were encouraged to really listen to a gay Christian point of view and not told ahead of time they had the correct Christian perspective?

   Sincerely,

   -Lee Stagg
   www.anagnosticchristian.com

   Comment by Lee Stagg — April 20, 2006 @ 6:55 am

2. Hello all,

   I live in the shadow of Wheaton College and have posted on this subject over at http://tinyurl.com/jofsc. I was going to post it in the comments here, but I was afraid that the attribution might get lost if the formatting failed to transfer over.

   So you’re invited to take a look if you’re interested: http://tinyurl.com/jofsc

   Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" — April 20, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

3. Dear Dr. Litfin,

   Many years ago two men, Jonathan Blanchard and Davis Phinny founded two fine colleges (Wheaton and Oberlin) while they stood boldly against slavery in the civil rights movement of their day. Many Christians from their time, failing to understand Jesus’s true message of love and acceptance, condemned them for this, but they stood strong. It is truly a shame that only one of those colleges has remembered its roots. Its even a greater shame that the college which has forgotten calls itself Christian. Rev. Mel White and the members of Soulforce understand this. Unfortunately you apparently do not. It is tragic that you see Soulforce’s visit as a media ploy and not as an opportunity to learn how your policies affect people’s lives.

   My wife and I will be at Wheaton on Thursday night standing hand in hand in solidarity with many fellow alum, both Gay and Straight alike, all committed to seeing the oppression imposed by you, the Board of Trustees and other members of the Christian community end. The generation before me did the same with people of color in the south. We will not rest until bigotry is overturned in all of its forms and our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ are fully included into all aspects of society, including Wheaton College.

   Sincerely,

   Dr. & Rev. Robert & Deborah Morrison
   Wheaton Class of 1988 and 1987

   Comment by Robert and Deborah Morrison — April 20, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

4. I am a straight, divorced, single parent Wheaton grad (class of 1990). When I was a junior at Wheaton, a fellow student went out one day around lunchtime and knelt on the train tracks in front of an oncoming train near the off campus apartments in which I lived. I did not know him personally, but I understand that he was gay. I will never forget this as long as I live. It was devastating for me and many others. I cannot say for certain whether the alienation he felt as a gay man at Wheaton was the primary reason for his suicide. But I cannot help to think that it was certainly a factor. I have many painful feelings when I think about Wheaton. Since my marriage to a fellow Wheaton grad failed four years ago, I no longer represent the “model” Wheaton alum. I have not gone back to Wheaton since then because now I do not fit in with my fellow alums, who return to Wheaton reunions with their spouses and children. If I feel this way, I can only begin to imagine how gay students and alumni must feel. It’s time that we put an end to the alienation of those who do not fit the married-with-children evangelical model. Jesus died for ALL of us. If I could, I would stand with other alums like the Morrisons and declare that God’s love, and thus my love, extends to my gay brothers and sisters. They are worthy of receiving a warm welcome into the Wheaton community.

   Comment by Lisa — April 20, 2006 @ 5:55 pm

5. Here is the response I posted on the Wheaton Catholics Yahoo Group:

   Hi All:

   I, too, received the general e-mail that Wheaton/Litfin sent to its alumni, students and friends. Frankly, I found Litfin’s e-mail rather unfortunate. It lacked pastoral sensitivity and nuanced (intellectual) reflection.

   What, exactly, is a “homosexual activist?” Is a homosexual activist a muscular man clad in bondage leather, screaming epithets while carrying placards splayed with vulgar aphorisms? What are the types of images that we are supposed to glean form from those words? Words are deeds. And, the words with which Litfin chose to characterize these individuals does nothing less than marginalize their humanity and inclusion in the Kingdom of God.

   Furthermore, Litfin’s e-mail is devoid of any ambiguity. It is “us” vs. “them.” He fails to realize, as does most evangelical discourse on this issue, is that it is really about “we.” Like it or not, there are men and women, ardent followers of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, who chose to describe themselves as homosexual. There are even members of this Yahoo Group who are homosexual. I have an adult gay godson.

   Let me be clear: I have no solution, or even unique wisdom, on the matter of homosexuality in the Church. But of this I’m certain: we have proceeded along this path of discernment without humility and willingness to personally and corporately repent and reconcile. Instead, we’ve chosen fear — us vs. them. We’ve chosen to judge others — pass judgment on those persons who perhaps have “different” sins. And, what’s more, we’ve chosen to be Pharisaic, to chose the lordship of rules rather than the Lordship of Jesus Christ; we’ve chosen to condemn some persons, and laud others, based on their faithful adherence to “rules” rather than on their humble, self-sacrificial love for Jesus and each other.

   So no [edited], these men and women are not “homosexual activists.” Some of them are your brothers and sisters in Christ who have been judged and marginalized in crucial times of pain, suffering and discernment. Most of them, from what I understand, just want to be others to listen to their story. Perhaps they’re asking for compassion and understanding. I see that as rather shameful, actually. Isn’t The Church the one who should be asking for compassion and understanding?

   I mean, let’s face it. It isn’t like The Lord is any less in LOVE with each of “them” as He is with otherwise “straight” people.

   Pace et Bene,

   José O. T. Vilanova ‘89

   Comment by José Vilanova — April 20, 2006 @ 6:06 pm

6. Forgive the digression, but I cannot help but post another comment after seeing José Vilanova’s post. After graduating from Wheaton I moved to Miami, where I still live. Living in a multicultural city opened my eyes to the sadly homogeneous environment of Wheaton. When I was at Wheaton, there was only a handful of Latino and African American students. I do not doubt that they felt as alienated as the gay and lesbian students. I certainly hope this is not still the case.

   Comment by Lisa — April 20, 2006 @ 6:32 pm

7. […] e, Wheaton College. I wanted to encourage everyone to stop by overflowmag.com and read some some of the open letters to President Litfin. People have written in respon […]

   Pingback by Open Letters to Wheaton President at Overflowmag.com at Trying to follow — April 20, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

8. blah blah blah “gayness is such a big issue oh noes!” Some people don’t like wheaton, so they leave. I did.

   Do you think it is a human right to have institutions bend to our will? It’s nothing more than supply and demand. If we do not support wheaton, all we need to do is stop giving our money to it. They will not come and take it (unless it is for services previously rendered).

   I encourage those who disagree with wheaton’s policies to disafilliate themselves. Why are people trying to change how wheaton works? Likely they feel they are the true christians, while those in the church who hold hurtful opinions are not. I suppose they could be trying to change the church because they love the church. Jesus loved so he laid down his life amirite? Getting all huffy about it and trying to change things is a poor course of action. Without the power of the people, no one will oust the people in charge. The problem with writing many good points is people will not read them all.

   Perhaps they want to save face in the light of others who will judge them based on who they are with. However, unless someone is a coward, they have no reason to wory about what others think of them. If a person judges without understanding the case, then they are not a worthy judge. I would rather have a worthy judge than a promotion or anything else given by bribing an unworthy judge.

   Comment by sam — April 20, 2006 @ 9:49 pm

9. While I can certainly appreciate the general sentiments of the above posts I need to caution people to hold off judgment until this weekend is finished. Dr. Jones is handling soul force activities right now. This afternoon and evening very beneficial and mutually informative meetings were had.

   I do agree with ’sam’ who wrote that those who do not support what Wheaton stands for should withdraw their financial support or transfer schools-I feel this way about all people who have serious problems with Wheaton’s Statement of Faith and practices in the community covenant.

   Finally, I have had several very encouraging and edifying conversations with soul force members. They have been gladly received. We are all learning from each other. The Chicago Tribune add is very misleading. Wheaton College does not believe God doesn’t love homosexuals. Rather, this afternoon we affirmed all of our humanities and participated in a liturgy of repentence for the horrificly violent emotional, mental, and physical acts commited again the GLBT community. There is hope. Change is never quick in coming…but we begin with love and with listening. I think that for now that is the first step.

   Comment by Conni — April 20, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

10. wtfwtfwtf my real name is sam it’s not a fake name therefore it does not need quotation marks around it.

    and yes you are totally right that people should be patient and try to understand both sides. Also, I think that it is really important for christians to say they are sorry for not trying to do the above.

    Wow I really wish I could be at wheaton to partake in this event because I feel that there are a lot of interesting sides I could try to understand.

    Comment by sam — April 20, 2006 @ 10:33 pm

11. It’s hard to come to an acceptance of how inadequately and poorly the majority of Christians have dealt with this issue. I think that the simple fact that soulforce is here will teach us to be more compassionate and loving, even if we still disagree with their biblical interpretation.

    I had dinner tonight with Jacob who is the co-leader of the ride. I can only speak for myself, but I know that to me, this Equality Ride has been a “success” because by the time they leave, the Lord will have shown me much about what it means to love others.

    Comment by Chuck Liu — April 20, 2006 @ 10:51 pm

12. I managed an MA at Wheaton (2002). Fond ambivelance is my best description of the school. Mostly fondness, though. Just want to cautiously add a different view here.

    Liftin’s letter struck me the wrong way, but not for the reasons thus far expressed in comments here. It just seemed a little too casual. Maybe too “bothered” by the whole Equity Ride thing. I was in Wheaton a couple weeks ago on business and spent time with many friends at the school. No one had a negative attitude about the visit. Of course, no one I spoke with supported Soulforce’s position. But all were very eager to meet and engage in conversation the riders.

    Just my two-cents here. I’ve talked to a lot of evangelical Christians who support the stance Wheaton and similar schools take. Many people I talk to feel disappointed in the way that “evangelicals” (quotes indicated so-called evangelicals) who do not support the GLBT position have treated GLBT. Not just a few evangelicals would like to find more positive ways to dialog with the GLBT community. There is a genuine cultural opportunity to see better understanding between evangelicals and GLBTs. Unfortunately the opportunity does not serve the opportunists on either side. Too bad.

    Comment by Dave — April 20, 2006 @ 11:11 pm

13. I just read this letter. I am not a Wheaton grad, but I have plenty of friends who have attended there and I went to Taylor University. I think Wheaton should be glad that they are being included in the dialogue. I hope that the students will not respond by trying to “prove” anyone wrong or “convert” anyone. When we approach people with the intent of changing them they are usually not changed. When we approach people with the intent of friendship we are changed. I hope that Wheaton’s alumni, students, and faculty can develop relationships instead of creating a new pamphlet to refute “them.”

    Comment by Peter — April 21, 2006 @ 4:35 am

14. “I do agree with ’sam’ who wrote that those who do not support what Wheaton stands for should withdraw their financial support or transfer schools-I feel this way about all people who have serious problems with Wheaton’s Statement of Faith and practices in the community covenant.”

    The problem with this is that some of us arrive at Wheaton believing homosexuality is a sin and come to believe in time that God is calling us to accept our sexual orientation. At least, that’s what happened to me. And I have not felt free to sharewhat is really going on in my life with people at Wheaton for fear of expulsion. It’s ironic to me–that I am excited about what God is doing in my life and can’t share it with most fellow Christians around me.

    Comment by Anonymous current student — April 21, 2006 @ 10:43 am

15. omgomgomg not again!

    wait hang on I have a question. What does Wheaton college do to those who are homosexual? I mean, does the school kick people out because they are (from a certain point of view) struggling with a problem?

    I could see the student body rejecting someone who was homosexual, but that happens everywhere, not just at wheaton, right? What EXACTLY are the visitors trying to accomplish?

    Comment by sam — April 21, 2006 @ 1:10 pm

16. I read an article this morning from the Chicago Tribune. Wheaton Provost Stanton Jones responded to the issue of homosexuals who are enrolled at the college. The following is an excerpt:

    Jones said campus leaders don’t expel students for coming out unless they engage in homosexual behaviors that violate the covenant or if they’re not open to counseling or other remedies to confront their feelings.

    “We want to be a loving and patient place,” Jones said. “We want to be pastoral in the way we help a person in that struggle.”

    I am terribly saddened by this response. I, too, believe that a student should follow the community covenant while enrolled at Wheaton–even if you think that it is rediculous. Otherwise, you should pick a different school. I gave up dancing in the 80’s when I was there. I was not, however, required to enter counseling for wanting to dance or expelled for publically proclaiming that I believed that celebrating life by dancing was a gift from God. Not dancing for 4 years was sufficient to satisfy the powers that be. Until those powers come to fully accept gays and lesbians as full image-bearers of Christ, asking GLBT students to be chaste while enrolled (summers and semester breaks off, like everyone else) seems only fair. Unfortunately, Provost Jones’ statement simply goes too far. Requiring a student to “struggle” with who they are as a condition of continued enrollment is simply spiritual abuse.

    Up until now I thought that the idea of expelling a student for proclaiming God’s acceptance of GLBT persons/refusing reprative therapy was a rumor spread by Soulforce to garner support. I was actually happier when I thought that to be true. College is supposed to be a place where we learn, explore, test, debate, etc. To expell a student from a non-denominational Christian college because he/she does not hold pre-prescribed opinion on something not directly relevant to Christianity i.e. the Lordship of Christ, is simply mind control. Recently, especially in light of the new community covenant, Wheaton it is looking much more like a Southern Baptist Church than a non-denominational college. The leanings of Wheaton are very specific to a particular branch of Christianity. I think that a part of the reason so many alumns are having a problem with Wheaton’s recent stance on homosexuality (among other issues) is that when these students attended Wheaton, their denomination was allowed to be heard. I am an American Baptist. In the 80’s, Wheaton was an acceptable school for someone of my denomination. It no longer is. I didn’t change. Wheaton did. I used to dream of my children enrolling at Wheaton and being pictured as Third Generation Students. But, unless Wheaton stops being a denominational church that teaches and returns to being a non-denomination college, my kids will be going elsewhere.

    Comment by 80's Graduate — April 21, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

17. In short, Wheaton College does not expel those who are struggling with their homosexuality. The Covenant we all have to sign lists homosexual actions as a sin. If one disagrees and cannot abide by the covenant with integrity, then that may be a cause to expel the student. In accepting the homosexual lifestyle, the argument is that one cannot also agree with the Covenant.

    Comment by Chuck Liu — April 21, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

18. Sam -

    If you read the soulforce website, you will note that several of the students on the equality ride were, in fact, expelled from Christian colleges for being gay. I’m a Wheaton college drop out, and I currently work for a Christian college that was visited by Soulforce (I’m quitting, so only for three more weeks) and I can tell you that the current policy of the administration and board of trustees is the following:

    Every new hire for ANY position - staff or faculty - is asked their position on homosexuality. If their response is anything other than “Homosexual sex is always a sin in every circumstance”, they will not be hired. I had someone in my office two days ago complaining that she had to ask a woman interviewing for an administrative assistant position her view on homosexuality. I have also been personally told by high level administrators that if a student were to openly state that they were gay and were okay with that, he would tell them that they should go to another school. I can assure you that if they were to do the same to all the heterosexual students having sex, we would have a significantly smaller student body - even though that behavior is also explicitly forbidden in the student handbook. My employer is considered “liberal” by several other evangelical schools, BTW. Students do not have to sign a statement of faith to be accepted, but they do have to sign on to a code of conduct - which is very selectively enforced.

    I know of three people who were not offered employment solely because of their OPINION on homosexuality. When I applied to teach an urban sociology class, I had 3 hours of interviews - 30 minutes of which were devoted to eliciting my views on homosexuality and what I would do if a student told me s/he was gay, despite the fact that the course content had nothing to do with sexuality. I was deemed unsuitable to teach the class - although that probably had as much to do with my inability to make a definitive statement about who is going to hell as anything else.

    Unless Wheaton has changed a whole lot since I was there 15 years ago, I would be surprised if it’s any different there. Given that Wheaton recently fired a professor for becoming Catholic, I doubt it.

    Even if you think that homosexuality is wrong, doesn’t this fixation and fear seem just a little bit crazy to you? It does to me, which is one of several reasons I’m never working for evangelicals again. I know how much it hurts to be told that you are not really a Christian or that your experience of God is not valid or that there is something fundamentally wrong with you. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anybody else, which is why this matters.

    Peace.

    Comment by Christy — April 21, 2006 @ 5:01 pm

19. rock and roll! Christians really suck, eh?

    my question for those who are trying to change wheaton is “why bother?”

    Comment by sam — April 21, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

20. I’m a bit new to this discussion, and something “80’s [sic] graduate” wrote puzzles me: “The leanings of Wheaton are very specific to a particular branch of Christianity.” Regarding Wheaton College’s views on homosexuality, what particular branch would that be? Wouldn’t it be what 99% of all Christians who lived in the past, and well over 90% of the estimated 2 billion Christians presently alive, would adhere to? The position of the College seems to me to have nothing to do with being “denominational” or “non-denominational”–it has to do with sharig in the overall message of the vast bulk of historical Christian theology of all denominational stripes.

    I don’t think it’s Wheaton College who is out of step with traditional Christianity on this one. And it’s a long reach to ask that 2,000 years of traditional Christianity be re-defined to accommodate a minority view, even if that minority is vocal and visits the campus (initially) uninvited… Although the views of majority Christianity may have changed somewhat through the centuries, it is difficult to identify many issues of this magnitude on which the ENTIRE church–Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox–has dramatically changed opinions in that time. Perhaps acceptance of Jews vs. former persecution as “Christ-killers”? Calls for war against unbelievers? The acceptance of human slavery? After the Jerusalem Council in Acts, the list of such major changes seems rather short. I’m no church historian–what am I forgetting, other than the standard Catholic-Orthodox, Catholic-Protestant, and Protestant denominational disagreements? After all, the goal of the transmission of the faith is to be consistent, “once for all delivered to the saints.”

    Isn’t the position of both Catholics and Orthodox, and a great majority of Protestants, that homosexual praxis is not consistent with Christian discipleship? If so I don’t think adhering to that position makes Wheaton a theological outlier–quite the reverse. The plea of the GLBT community seems to be that the church has their theology wrong (as does Wheaton College as a subset of the church), and because of that error GLBT members are persecuted and denied equal status. The burden of proof seems to be on those who desire change to demonstrate that their lifestyles and behaviors are in fact consistent with Christian discipleship. The church has long said no, and so has Wheaton College. The Church and the College should repent of, and avoid, hatred and violence, but it does not seem like the Church thinks it can retreat from the position that homosexual praxis is sin without undoing its own foundation.

    “Christy” says that she will never work for evangelicals again. Certainly evangelicals have their flaws. But it is hardly surprising if they do not wish to employ those who do not share their perspective. Historically black colleges are not likely to be interested in employing people with racist tendencies (I’m not equating that behavior to a toleration of homosexuality, so no flames please). Brigham Young University could hardly be faulted for seeking to employ only Mormons. Muslim schools would not likely be interested in teachers who do not follow Islam. I don’t think these forms of discrimination represent Christy’s “fixation and fear.” I’m not a Muslim and I don’t agree that Islam is true, but I would not be surprised if an Islamic school denied my admission for being a Christian, or kicked me out if I converted mid-program to Judaism. SoulForce says “We’re fellow Christians!” But Wheaton College and most of Christianity disagrees.

    If what bothers some about such religious discrimination is the implied statement “we’re right and you’re wrong,” well–there it is, the great problem of modernism vs. postmodernism. Religious folks of all types tend to think there are “right” and “wrong” moral views. It’s pretty hard to dodge the implications of that if you don’t happen to share the “right” views. You can stay away from those people and institutions if you want, but in the U.S. at least (vs. Cairo or Saudi Arabia, for instance) we all have First Amendment rights that allow us to discriminate on the basis of our beliefs rather than being forced to accept majority OR minority views. This protects both Wheaton College and the GLBT community.

    Christy says she wouldn’t wish on anyone the experience that someone else insists there is “something fundamentally wrong with you.” Does she understand this is precisely what Wheaton College thinks SoulForce is saying by showing up on the campus?!? SoulForce is implying there is something fundamentally wrong with Christian theology–at least as adopted by the College. And apparently SoulForce is offended that the College asserts there is something fundamentally wrong with their view too. (Of course, traditional Christian theology insists there is something fundamentally wrong with everyone–sin that needs forgiveness.) There seems to be a stalemate of moral authority here. Wheaton College thinks SoulForce is wrong to assert that homosexual practice is not sinful; SoulForce thinks the College is hateful and exclusivist. SoulForce thinks the College is “homophobic” (what an abused term!); the College thinks SoulForce is anti-evangelical if not anti-Christian.

    One wonders what dialog between the two can accomplish with no agreed source of moral authority? At least there should be a recognition that there are people, live humans loved by God, on either side of the debate. Perhaps the people at Wheaton will realize there can be members of the GLBT community who genuinely think of themselves as followers of Christ, and perhaps the SoulForce EquityRiders will realize Wheaton College really does think it is possible to love them while disagreeing with them, and in fact demonstrates this love. May God forgive us all our intolerances and imbue in us nevertheless a desire for truth and holiness.

    Comment by Diogenes redux — April 21, 2006 @ 6:30 pm

21. To Sam…you seem to be very anti-wheaton, along with other members here. On your website you state that you are no longer a Christian and that you were at Wheaton for only a short period. Others here I know from Wheaton as being from one of the crowds that rebels by going out to drink and smoke, both clear violations of the school policy. Why do you continue on with these statements against Wheaton? Why do you even bother to go to a school that you despise? The majority of the students love the place.

    Comment by anon — April 21, 2006 @ 7:46 pm

22. Well said, Diogenes. The debate over Wheaton’s policies regarding GLBT students goes far deeper than many people realize. Through the community covenant, the administration is trying to impose behavior standards based on two principles: healthy community and adherence to scriptural behavior standards. The bans on smoking and drinking fall under the first category. The exclusion of openly practicing or advocating GLBT students falls under the second. This is why the college considers it nonnegotiable.

    The Souforce riders seem to me to be arguing that such policies only reflect an anti-homosexual cultural bias that we’ve derived from historical/sociological traditions of oppression. The college, in our response, is trying to acknowledge that while a lot of sinful hatred and oppression has derived from such traditions, the basic policy of opposing homosexual conduct comes from a biblical and theological understanding of God’s plan for sexuality. I think the ride is a great opportunity for us to learn how to distinguish the evil practices and attitudes that we have adopted toward GLBT people from the biblical view of the exclusive holiness of matrimonial sexuality.

    Comment by Ethan Cordray — April 21, 2006 @ 8:06 pm

23. so what you’re saying, I think, is
    1. ’sam’ is anti wheaton. so are others. here is proof.
    2. why is sam anti wheaton?

    here is my answer:
    1. I don’t care what the morality of others here is because I am having a polite discussion with them which I havn’t had in a while. it’s fun.

    2. Long story short, I went to HoneyRock last summer instead of earning money. If wheaton would have given me off-campus housing, I could have gone back, but they didn’t. They would rather have no sam anywhere than a sam who didn’t pay room and board.

    (also: the classes were really hard!)

    Comment by sam — April 21, 2006 @ 8:38 pm

24. oh that last one goes out to Anon btw.
    also: I totally agree with Diagnostics

    Comment by sam — April 21, 2006 @ 8:40 pm

25. looks to me like no one’s willing to reconsider their side of it on here anyways, so what’s the point of arguing about it?

    Comment by anonymous — April 22, 2006 @ 1:01 am

26. Another site was talking about this letter and this post cracked me up….

    I can’t help but respond to the query “When one is informed out of the blue by one’s neighbors that they intend to enter your house whether you like it or not, is it not wisdom to invite them to come in, sit down, and converse with you rather than attempting to bar the door against them?” The way I see it, when one consistently and loudly proclaims that one’s neighbors are, in God’s eyes, living a life of sin and damnation, and they come to your house to discuss it with you, you can’t — simultaneously — tell another set of neighbors that you’re being unfairly beseiged by the sinners AND tell yet another set of neighbors that it was your idea to have a civilized, Christian-ly discussion all along. Or, I guess you CAN do all those things, but you’d be a) a bigot b) a hypocrite and c) a crappy neighbor.
    # posted by Liz : 4/21/2006 5:58 PM

    Comment by anon — April 22, 2006 @ 1:12 am

27. “In short, Wheaton College does not expel those who are struggling with their homosexuality. The Covenant we all have to sign lists homosexual actions as a sin. If one disagrees and cannot abide by the covenant with integrity, then that may be a cause to expel the student. In accepting the homosexual lifestyle, the argument is that one cannot also agree with the Covenant.”

    If a person is abiding by the covenant through celibacy how are they breaking the covenant by being comfortable with their homosexuality? The covenant is clearly talking about behavior.

    In short you are saying it is better for someone to wrestle around and suffer than be at peace and celibate…..which is very thin ground …biblically speaking.

    Comment by anon — April 22, 2006 @ 1:26 am

28. I am not arguing any position. I’m only relaying the limited knowledge I have of Wheaton’s policy. I get the distinct impression that if a person were to say, “yes, I’m homosexual, I can’t do too much about it, but because scripture says it’s wrong, I will be celibate,” the administration wouldn’t have too much of a problem. However, I believe that if the student were to say, “I do not believe homosexuality is wrong” then that would conflict with the covenant.

    Comment by Chuck Liu — April 22, 2006 @ 3:29 am

29. “Until those powers come to fully accept gays and lesbians as full image-bearers of Christ, asking GLBT students to be chaste while enrolled (summers and semester breaks off, like everyone else) seems only fair.”

    Let’s not forget that Wheaton asks ALL students to be chaste, homosexual or heterosexual, so there is no “until those powers come to fully accept”…about it.

    Comment by Betsi — April 22, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

30. Maybe you have not read the “pledge” lately. It is very clear that it is calling for abstention from homosexual behavior; it does not say that homosexual orientation is wrong.

    It is a complete disconnect by the college to dismiss someone who is actively celibate and will remain actively celibate: regardless of accepting their orientation as right or wrong

    In order for Wheaton to be harmonious with expelling a celibate homosexual who finds no sin in “being gay” the pledge needs to be changed to reflect that homosexual behavior AND orientation is a sin. Then they need to fire Stanton Jones for espousing that homosexual orientation in and of itself is not sin, but only homosexual behavior is.

    Comment by anon — April 22, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

31. I’m sorry that I was not more clear in my statement. I agree with your way of stating it, in saying that homosexual orientation is not a sin, but that homosexual actions are. However, if accepting one’s own homosexual orientation means affirming homosexual actions even if not actively participating in it, I’m not sure how the administration would react. I still think that they would likely expel the student if they said “I’m a chaste homosexual, but do not believe homosexual actions are wrong.” But honestly, I’m not the administration, and this is just my own speculation.

    Comment by Chuck Liu — April 22, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

32. So the question still remains: at what point do we draw the line, but this time, in regards to the covenant, not necessarily in regards to morality. Would the college expel two male homosexual students who did something as simple as one giving the other a hug after spending some time together talking? Or would they expel two lesbians for kissing each other goodnight? I’m not sure that I can even guess what the administration’s policy would be if that were to happen. I would almost hope that they would not do anything along the lines of expulsion for the previous actions, even though they may be “in conflict” with the community covenant or the position held by the college institutionally. Why? Because I’ve seen these things happen between heterosexual students without the thought of a question being raised by those who may have observed it. So to say that those would qualify as “homosexual actions” would be to incorrectly label many heterosexuals as breaking the covenant for engaging in homosexual activity. So, is it right for some and wrong for others, merely because of their sexual orientation? Or is it wrong altogether? Or is it possible that there’s a third option?

    Comment by Chris — April 23, 2006 @ 1:33 am

33. the line is not so thin. if the students were questioned and they intended to continue their relationship and thus reject the beliefs of the college they would subsequently face expulsion.

    the truth is neither side of students knew the whole issue. we engaged christian-to-christian and human-to-human with the riders. the majority of wheaton students and nearly all of the soulforce riders have no working knowedge of NT texts…that is, they can proof-text their answer to homosexuality but look to Dr. Jones to do the rest. this to me is the real shame on wheaton. we’ve become parrots. i do believe, in my brief time at wheaton as a biblical and theo major, that an accurate understanding of the text is in line with tradition and that interpretive acrobatics are necessary to justify the homosexual position in scripture. there is another difference in approach that is noted. for the riders their beginning point for theo was their experience (and for the most part i would argue rightly so…they do not have the privilege of taking off their homosexuality or forgetting the maltreatment and fear at the hands of christians and society). however, experince will take you only so far. at some point it has to atone for its difficulties in scripture, tradition, and reason. although soulforce attempted to appel to reason by citing medical evidence their appels were secular in nature and not theological.

    if you read nothing else read this: don’t be a parrot. if you belive something back it up or shut up (sorry that is so crass but i’m sick of parrots)

    Comment by Conni — April 23, 2006 @ 2:56 am

34. I attended Wheaton freshman, sophomore, and part of my junior years in 2000-2002. I played two things while I was there to take the focus off my inevitable confession: soccer and guitar. Being in the closet was a painful and miserable existance, despite my Wheaton-esque happy appearance on the outside, one that I imposed on myself fearing consequences of being outed. My now partner of 4 years (then girlfriend of three weeks), Carolyn, came to visit me early into my junior year. When a fellow Kilby housemate reported me, I was asked by a trusted friend and GRA if I was, “doing unnatural things with my body.” My mentor committed suicide that same week, suffering from intense depression. I knew that I had too long been silent, which lead to my impending depression as well, but felt Wheaton was not willing to hear my Truth. Dean Schultze asked me if there was anything I wanted to tell her as I was withdrawing from my classes that September. My supportive mother stood next to me through the ordeal as Wheatonites tried to pigeonhole me into labeling myself. It took me years to come to an definative of who I am, who I was created to be. Therefore, it is feasable to me why it is taking the community even longer to do so. My Texan roommate from Williston and I once debated about heavily about our disagreements on abortion and other issues. I thought for certain I would lose her when I told her my story. However, she was one of only four Wheatonites who supported me fully after my departure and kept in close touch. The other couple, who still reside in the Chicago area, told me and my partner at their gorgeous wedding, that we have changed the way the look at GLBT relationships. He will soon be a pastor and she a doctor. The fourth friend is still living a secret life, and I cannot share any details to protect her identity. If nothing else, I am so very blessed to have gone to Wheaton to learn the true value of friendship, regardless of differences in sexuality, religion, etc. The world is a beautiful, colorful, borderless place. The beauty far extends Wheaton’s campus. So I am now a “homosexual activist” as Litfin has so effortlessly labeled my friends and family. And it is a loaded word I am more than willing to re-claim, a word filled with pride, compassion, power, and love. My passion for all people was fueled by the homogenous nature of Wheaton- I knew there was more to the world than what the school wanted me to see. Soulforce are my brothers and sisters, spreading the good word that love knows no sex, gender, sexuality, race, religion. And they are doing us all a favor, opening eyes and hearts to a love that may be different from yours, but is still love.

    Comment by Marie Rineveld — April 23, 2006 @ 8:34 am

35. Marie,

    Thank you for sharing your story with beauty and grace-

    Comment by Anonymous current student — April 23, 2006 @ 11:38 am

36. i also thank you for sharing.

    Comment by Conni — April 23, 2006 @ 12:47 pm

37. All of the stories I’ve heard from the Soulforce riders and from Marie Rineveld and others are quite heart-rending and inspiring. However, this simply illustrates Conni’s point: this is not an issue that can be argued on a purely experience-based level. A rider can tell her story about finding hope and peace in embracing her homosexual desires. Someone else might tell a story about feeling horrible guilt and sinfulness that only recedied after he left a life of homosexuality (as a Wheaton chapel speaker did last semester).Arider might say that societies in which homosexuality is accepted have much lower rates of sexual violence. A traditionalist might respond that acceptance of homosexuality contributed to the collapse of the Roman empire and the chaos of the Weimar Republic. Such “argument” can go back and forth forever. Both personal stories and historical/sociological examples can never get beyond the necessarily limited and manipulable realm of subjective empirical argumentation. If this is our only source of evidence, then what we have is merely ideological warfare, where force alone determines what is true.

    The real impasse between people like Stan Jones and the leader of Soulforce is over the basis of argumentational authority. Traditionalists believe that truth has to come primarily from sources of undeniable authority, such as scripture, that are allowed to critique our own personal experiences. The riders on the other hand seem to believe that their experiences ought to be the final arbiter.

    I don’t deny that a lot of Wheaton students unknowingly fall into the second view of authority, whatever their particular views on homosexuality. The problem with this is that it really is simply impossible to argue from such a basis. What postmodern ideological critics rightly realize is that if everything is up to one’s personal subjective experience and interpretation of history, then power is the only arbiter. There is no debating; there is only fighting.

    Comment by Ethan Cordray — April 23, 2006 @ 3:03 pm

38. In an effort to continue conversation, yet also avoid the confusion that comment threads create when they head in different directions, I’m going to close the comments on this post. Originally, this post was only intended to contain open letters to President Litfin. If you would like to add your own open letter please email it to me and I’ll add it to the comments on this section.

    Those who would like to continue to post about the topics and discussions that where brought up here can email me post they would like to see published at Overflowmag.com (with you as the author).
    My only request is that your posts fit into the mission of Overflow:
    “We are alternative voices seeking to share the overflow of our hearts with the Christian College Community.”

    Thank you all for your interest and discussion.

    Ariah Fine
    ariahfine@gmail.com

    Comment by Ariah Fine — April 23, 2006 @ 10:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• subscribe to Overflow Mag!
• Categories:
  • News
  • Blog
  • Radio Show
  • Rants and Raves
• Contributers:
  • Alicia Kraft
  • Alix Farr
  • Ariah Fine
  • Brian Howell
  • Bryan Blakeley
  • Corey
  • Dan Chen
  • Kristen Namba
  • Matt Saul
  • Richard Wu
  • Staycie
  • Todd Zimmerman
• Pages
  • Get Involved!
  • How to subscribe to our Podcast Radio Show
• Search:
  
  
• Archives:
  • July 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • January 2006
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • June 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
• Meta:
  • 
    
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Visits: