July 14, 2015

Wheaton’s Julie Rodgers Resigns, “Evolving” on Same-Sex Relationships

Well, that didn’t take long. Wheaton’s Fall 2014 hire Julie Rodgers, a “gay celibate Christian,” has resigned from her post amid her shifting viewpoint on same-sex relationships , as reported by Eric Teetsel, Executive Director of the Manhattan Declaration. Rodgers, who served as a ministry associate for spiritual care, wrote and spoke often of her commitment to honor God’s prescription for sexuality and marriage by remaining celibate. Now Rodgers says her commitment “has evolved through the years.”

On her personal blog, Rodgers explains:

 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.

Rodgers’ shift on same-sex relationships comes as a bit of a shock to the Christian community. As recent as may of this year, my colleague Jeffrey Walton listened as Rodgers expressed her orthodox convictions during a Q conference panel. “I believe that our bodies matter – that gender complementarity matters, that our bodies tell us important things about reality, about ourselves and how we should live,” Rogers said to Q’s hipster Evangelical audience. “I trust that the boundaries God put around sexual expression are for our flourishing.”

Commentary on Rodger’s shift emerged quickly in the blogosphere Monday night and early into Tuesday morning.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Denny Burke noted on his blog that a sound Biblical basis is missing from Rodger’s statement. “Rogers’s explanation of her change of heart is long on personal experience and short on Bible.” Burke continues, “If she has a reasoned biblical rationale for her views, she didn’t share it. It shouldn’t be lost on readers that other considerations seem to be driving her embrace of gay relationships, not God’s word.”

Teetsel, a Wheaton alumnus, commented on his Patheos blog that the college’s decision to hire a counselor  to mentor students with same-sex attraction should be applauded. However, such a hire should be approached with prayerful discernment. “Hiring Rodgers and giving her access to students as a voice of wisdom and authority was an error for which Wheaton owes students, parents and the entire alumni community an apology,” writes Teetsel. “But, for now at least, that era is over, and for that we can be thankful.”

A sad occurrence, to say the least. Rodgers was a vibrant, gracious voice for many young Christians struggling with same-sex attraction while seeking to faithfully follow Christ.

Faithful Christians should continue to pray for the Holy Spirit’s intercession in Rodger’s struggle with same-sex attraction and decision that undermines God’s perfect plan for human relationships. After all, we ourselves need prayer and Divine intervention when we inevitably, at times, elevate our emotions and desires above Christ’s commandments. “If it turns out that I’m wrong,” writes Rodgers, “I trust God will be faithful to catch me.”


100 Responses to Wheaton’s Julie Rodgers Resigns, “Evolving” on Same-Sex Relationships

  1. Max says:

    I can’t imagine any evangelical organization hiring a gay or lesbian, even if they claim to be celibate. There is just too much risk of “moles” working to undermine the organization from within.

    • cantthinkofusernamehere says:

      And then you guys wonder why LGBT people continue being driven away from your congregations…

      • 0pus35 says:

        Actually, the PRO-gay churches are the ones losing members by the thousands. Most conservative denominations are growing. In an immoral world, a church that looks exactly like that world attracts no one.

        Go check out the numbers on the Episcopalians and other pro-sodomy churches. Within 20 years they will cease to exist, based on their numbers.

        • Gsaseeker says:

          Neither the SBC nor the RCC is growing. The UMC is not growing, despite its anti-gay stands. So I think you need a better, more empirical explanation for why religion is generally declining in the Western Hemisphere and Europe.

          • 0pus35 says:

            Stop changing the subject, we’re not talking about religion in general, we’re talking about pro-gay churches have been losing members for decades.

            Sorry that facts upset you. There is no arguing with numbers. Read ’em and weep.

            Data from the Association of Religion Data Archives
            http://www.arda.com

            Assemblies of God (very conservative)
            1960: 508,000
            2009: 2,914,000

            United Pentecostal (very conservative)
            1960: 175,000
            2009: 646,000

            Church of God (ultra conservative)
            1960: 170,000
            2009: 1,076,000

            Presbyterian Church in America (broke away from the liberal Presbys)
            1973: 41,322
            2009: 341,210

            Evangelical Free Church
            1960: 31,543
            2008: 356,000

            Church of the Nazarene
            1960: 307,000
            2009: 645,000

            Christian and Missionary Alliance
            1960: 59,000
            2009: 432,000

            Mormons (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
            1960: 1,486,000
            2009: 6,058,000

            Seventh-Day Adventists (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
            1960: 317,000
            2009: 1,043,000

            By contrast, the liberals:

            Episcopalians
            1960: 3.2 million (1.8% of US population)
            2012: 1.8 million (0.66%)

            United Church of Christ
            1960: 2,056,000
            2012: 998,080,000
            More than half its members in 50 years.

            United Methodist
            1960: 11,026,000
            2009: 7,774,000

            Presbyterian Church USA
            1983 (year of their merger): 3.1 million
            2012: 1.8 million

            Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
            1987 (year of their merger): 5.2 million
            2013: 3.9 million

            Disciples of Christ
            1960: 1.8 million
            2009: 658,000

            That’s how it is! ALL left-wing churches are losing, hugely. Embracing sodomy is a pew-emptying strategy.

          • Gsaseeker says:

            )

            Yes, and they are largely losing to nones and other conservative sects. But that doesn’t mean that conservative religious affiliation is growing; on the contrary, the RCC and SBC are bleeding members. And it is ridiculous to put the UMC numbers on the “liberal” side, since the UMC is decidedly not “pro-sodomy,” whatever that means.

            The SBC has lost about a million members over a decade, and 1/4 of SBC churches report 0 baptisms, 60 percent report no baptism of children past the age of accountability and 80 percent report no baptism of young adults (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/04/southern-baptists-meet-membership-baptism-decline-continues/

            ). So much for strident homophobia earning membership! Similarly, the RCC in America has lost 3 million members since 2007 (http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-drops-and-catholicism-is-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/). In fact, for every single convert, the RCC loses six members. What a growth strategy!

            I love that you use the Mormons as an example. Their membership growth is almost totally attributable to large families, and their nominal converts usually stop paying dues; actual, self-identified Mormon membership has grown only at the US population rate (http://religiondispatches.org/mormon-numbers-not-adding-up/).

            Nones, by contrast, socially liberal and generally skeptical and holding religion in low esteem, grew by 6.7% of the US population between 2007 and 2015 (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/), while evangelicals stagnate and decline.
            You seem to be operating under the assumption that I care about the mainline Protestants. Their decline is welcome, because they provide a shield of respectability that your coreligionists do not deserve.

          • 0pus35 says:

            Funny to see people on the religious left HAPPY that there are more NONES in the world. That shows the reality of why you attend church – it’s to push a political agenda, not to push faith.

          • Gsaseeker says:

            I am not a member of the religious left, and I do not attend church. So I don’t know why your comment is directed at me.

          • 0pus35 says:

            So you are just one more
            bored
            lonely
            sad
            hate-filled
            gay troll
            with nothing better to do than flip your middle finger at Christians.
            Do you have a clue how pathetic that is? No wonder so many gays commit suicide, what kind of life is that, hating people you never even met? Do you think your spiteful remarks on the internet make you more of a man? You’re just a pathetic, effeminate craven coward.

            Get a life, you zero.

          • Edwin Woodruff Tait says:

            Actually there’s plenty of arguing with numbers. The reliance of conservatives on these kinds of statistics to make some sort of doctrinal point is one of those things that would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic and horrifying.

          • 0pus35 says:

            LOL
            I love the way leftists dodge and dance when those numbers get posted. It blows their whole mythology to smithereens. In your myths, millions of people would be fleeing the Christian churches and packing into the liberal churches – but it hasn’t happened, never will.

          • Gary Whiteman says:

            Actually, the numbers are tragic and horrifying to leftists, because you are LOSING, and you keep trying to spin the data. How pathetic is that, envying churches that are growing? Your bitterness is hilarious – you cannot make converts in those churches, there is nothing to convert to. For every disgruntled person who leaves a Christian church and joins a liberal one, there are five who move in the opposite direction. Face it, you have lost.

          • Realitycbd says:

            You’re upset that the Episcopagans are losing hugely?

            Brace yourself, it’s going to get MUCH worse. This new presiding bishop will probably outdo old Schiori in driving the members away.

            I’m Anglican Church in North America, we get the Christians fleeing the Episcopagan church, so your loss is our gain, and it’s more than just numbers, it’s quality also, as we get the ones most committed to reading the Bible for themselves as well as donating their time and money. Our pastor, ex-Episcopagan (he went to the ultra-lefty Episc Div School in Berserkeley) says that his real Christian walk began the day he left the Episcopagan church. It’s a beautiful thing, we’re hoping the ACNA will be bigger than the Episcs in 20 years, maybe less.

            If you ever feel drawn to the true Word of God, the ACNA will welcome you.

          • Namyriah says:

            We get some ex-Episkies in my PCA church too. Not much ritual with us, but good theology.

          • Mike Ward says:

            I’m not sure, but I think taken as a whole conservative Christian churces are probably in a period of slight decline following years of strong growth. Liberal churches are continuing to hemorage members as they have for decades.

          • Gsaseeker says:

            Yes, for now the conservatives are experiencing a slow but steady decline. But you need only look at the demographics of evangelicals to see that the millennials are evangelical Christianity’s death rattle. The mainlines are losing members fast because they bleed conservatives and nones. But conservatives will follow in short order.

          • Mark Bell says:

            Nope, we’re doing fine, Miss Troll.
            The numbers don’t back you up, Miss Troll.

      • scottrose says:

        Actually, they drove the Christians away. No one wants to drink out of a Communion cup when people with HIV are touching it.

        • Gsaseeker says:

          What goes into the mouth does not defile you, but what come out does.

          • DavidPHart says:

            Not really, you get AIDS from sex with men.

          • Gsaseeker says:

            No, sex with men does not spontaneously generate AIDS. Perhaps you would do better to study a useful field like epidemiology instead of theology.

          • Max says:

            Gay men don’t infect other men with AIDS?

            So how do they get it?

            You sound like a liar.

          • Gsaseeker says:

            I said that “sex with men does not spontaneously generate AIDS,” and for that matter, sex between men does not spontaneously generate HIV. What you need to understand about HIV, which is the actual virus, is that it is a communicable pathogen. In order to get HIV, you must come into contact with someone who is already infected. And because the virus is dormant for an extended period of time, it was able to sweep through the gay community largely unnoticed. Remember, this was prior to widespread use of condoms. By the time it materialized, by the time the first people who had HIV progressed to AIDS, tens of thousands of people were already infected with HIV, and there still wasn’t a test available to detect the antibodies. That came around 1985.
            I am not denying that engaging in unprotected sex with people who are HIV positive or who have an unknown status is not risky, or that the virus has had a disproportionate impact on men who have sex with men. But you need only look to Africa to see that heterosexual sex can just as easily become the major mode of transmission. And remember, that’s where the current HIV pandemic originated, through animal to human transmission.

          • Max says:

            OK, gay men bear no responsibility for AIDS.
            Got it.

            You’re delusional.

          • Gsaseeker says:

            No one is responsible for creating HIV. People are responsible for their actions, once aware of it. But no, gay men are not collectively responsible for HIV any more than Europeans were collectively responsible for the plague.

      • Kangaroo52 says:

        No, we’re not wondering. No one drove anyone away. Many people accepted Jesus’ teaching, most people didn’t. In 2000 years, nothing has changed.

        Christianity is not poll-driven. It is what it is.

      • Max says:

        Post some links, I’ve never seen any videos of LGBT people being driven away, but I’m sure you have evidence for that.

    • Chris Borah says:

      When will fundamentalists’ understand that it is precisely because of comments like this that people prefer the kind and merciful tone of many revisionists. Ugh.

      • 0pus35 says:

        They don’t prefer the “merciful” churches, the pro-homosexual churches are all LOSING members.

        Never argue with facts. Churches that become social clubs for homosexuals are dying, and rightly so.

        • Chris Borah says:

          Arguing with facts, however true, rarely win a sympathetic hearing with anyone whom disagrees with you. Connotation is just as important as denotation.

          • 0pus35 says:

            “Connotation is just as important as denotation.” Liberal claptrap, void of meaning.

            Sorry that facts upset you. There is no arguing with numbers. Read ’em and weep.

            Data from the Association of Religion Data Archives
            http://www.arda.com

            Assemblies of God (very conservative)
            1960: 508,000
            2009: 2,914,000

            United Pentecostal (very conservative)
            1960: 175,000
            2009: 646,000

            Church of God (ultra conservative)
            1960: 170,000
            2009: 1,076,000

            Presbyterian Church in America (broke away from the liberal Presbys)
            1973: 41,322
            2009: 341,210

            Evangelical Free Church
            1960: 31,543
            2008: 356,000

            Church of the Nazarene
            1960: 307,000
            2009: 645,000

            Christian and Missionary Alliance
            1960: 59,000
            2009: 432,000

            Mormons (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
            1960: 1,486,000
            2009: 6,058,000

            Seventh-Day Adventists (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
            1960: 317,000
            2009: 1,043,000

            By contrast, the liberals:

            Episcopalians
            1960: 3.2 million (1.8% of US population)
            2012: 1.8 million (0.66%)

            United Church of Christ
            1960: 2,056,000
            2012: 998,080,000
            More than half its members in 50 years.

            United Methodist
            1960: 11,026,000
            2009: 7,774,000

            Presbyterian Church USA
            1983 (year of their merger): 3.1 million
            2012: 1.8 million

            Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
            1987 (year of their merger): 5.2 million
            2013: 3.9 million

            Disciples of Christ
            1960: 1.8 million
            2009: 658,000

            That’s how it is!

      • Max says:

        “Ugh” yourself. You hate fundamentalists and call yourself a Christian? If you feel that way, I’m sure the SBC would be glad to see you go.

    • Gary Kleeman says:

      There is plenty of room over at the United Church of Christ for the LGBT folks. I too don’t trust them. Their activists can be hateful.

      • Max says:

        Yes they are, the UCC actually ran a TV ad showing bouncers barring gays and blacks at the door of an evangelical church – which of course has never ever happened. I guess they weren’t too familiar with that thing about “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

        They got so much flack over that ad that they yanked it. The UCC’s motto is “God is still speaking,” but it appears that God is telling people to leave the UCC.

        • Gary Kleeman says:

          “God is still speaking” but not to me. The UCC blocked my Twitter account because I posted the following during their General Synod 2015:

          Jude 1:4 (NRSV) For certain intruders have stolen in among you, … , who pervert the grace of our God …

          I assume they didn’t like that.

    • I can imagine it, its called redemption. Its called forgiveness. Now if someone is still saying they believe it is OK to gay, of course there is a problem. But when someone tells you they understand the Biblical mandates against their sins and are committed to live accordingly, you must at least consider them.

    • Gsaseeker says:

      Yes, we believe that you only “hate the sin” with remarks like this, or those below. The entire enterprise of conservative American Christianity is fraudulent and is falling to pieces because it is built on a lie.

    • Mike Ward says:

      What was she doing when they hired he that they could morally object to? Plus she was clearly no mole. When her opinion changed, she was up front about it even though it cost her her job.

  2. Patrick says:

    . “If it turns out that I’m wrong,” writes Rodgers, “I trust God will be faithful to catch me.”

    It seems to me that many don’t get the gravity of this situation. It’s like, even if I’m wrong on this, it’s not a big deal, I’ll still be OK, God will still accept me.

    But, if conservative Christians are right, and the Bible condemns homosexuality, then it will not be OK, and God will not be there to catch you.

    So it has to be either, homosexuality is OK and God celebrates it, or God condemns it.

    Where do we get this idea that there is this third way where I can say it’s OK, but even if I’m wrong and it turns out that it is not OK, that God will still accept me?

    Who do we think Jesus was talking to when He said “Depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of lawlessness?”

    • brookspj says:

      Why don’t you ask the divorcees?

      • Patrick says:

        Do you see me advocating for divorce, or saying that divorce is acceptable?

        • brookspj says:

          I’m just pointing out that it seems like Christians have decided upon some kind of third way around divorce by either ignoring Jesus’ on words on it or the fact that great number of Christians are getting them and no major name in conservative Christians seems to be railing against the ways chronic divorce is destroying the sanctity of marriage. When did we decide this was ok or just something we’d quietly sweep under the rug? I never said you did advocate for divorce. But no one seems to be preaching against divorce much except Catholics.

          • Patrick says:

            Ok, sorry for the snark. I do agree with you that there is a huge problem with divorce among Christians — divorce that the Bible has clearly condemned. But, that double standard should lead us to repent and go back to Biblical standards on divorce, rather than embrace homosexuality.

          • brookspj says:

            The question is are you willing call out divorcees the same way churches are homosexuals? Are you willing to pursue this with the same determination? Are going to defend a civil servant’s who refuse to issue licenses to a couple where one of them is divorced or bakers who won’t do their cakes? Are you going to try to get state laws passed or an amendment to the Constitution? Are you going to declare churches that allow their members to get divorce apostate and write blogs about how lost they are?

          • Dennis Velco says:

            You hate conservatives because your church is one of the left-wing shrinking churches.

          • brookspj says:

            Actually, I was brought up in a fairly conservative church by two Republican-voting parents. So no, I don’t hate conservatives having had one give birth to me. Try again. My current church is kind of middle of the road (a little bit of this, little bit of that) and actually has experienced solid growth over the past three years in both attendance and tithing, but I don’t see what any of that has to do with Patrick and mine’s conversation.

          • Patrick says:

            I’d agree with Mike that I don’t think the two are exactly equivalent, as one is still a marriage between a man and a woman, which I believe is what God designed marriage to be. But, I understand the frustration that some have with what they would view as a double standard. And it is a good point. If I won’t do flowers for a gay marriage, will I do them for a couple that is on their 4th marriage?

            One of the biggest problems I see in this whole debate is cultural, conservative Christians trying to cling to this notion of America as a Christian nation, and trying to enforce that through legislation, without realizing that our country left that a long time ago.

            It’s sad that our nation is where it is. But is gay marriage being illegal going to suddenly make everyone Bible believing Christians? No. It won’t.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            What relevance to this conversation, is there in your comment, Dennis Velco?

          • brookspj says:

            The ad hominem fallacy sure is popular with this crowd. I think that’s the fifth time someone’s accused me of hating conservatives rather responding to my actual argument.

          • Mike Ward says:

            First of all these are not exactly equivalent things, but would you really be satisified in Christians started treating homosexuality the same way they treat divorce? Something which is denounced, but tolerated Accepted as a matter of pragmatism, but always criticized for not being the ideal?

          • brookspj says:

            How are they different Mike, aside from the fact one is less rare among our tithe-paying members?

    • Edwin Woodruff Tait says:

      To highly religious and orthodox people who did not truly love their neighbors.

      She is following her conscience. That’s why she can say that.

  3. Jim Katsoudas says:

    This should not surprise anyone. when you hang on to a gay identity you are keeping one foot over the fence of the gay world. To leave homosexuality and gayness behind one must truly renounce homosexuality and gayness as normal and God anointing

    • brookspj says:

      What would it take for them to earn your trust and respect, Jim? They’re already committed to celibacy. Would you prefer they all go get married to someone of the opposite sex they’re not even remotely attracted to and have nine babies? Is what leaving it behind looks like to you?

      • Jim Katsoudas says:

        brookspi,

        It’s not about them earning my respect. And No, absolutely not would I want a person to marry what they are not attracted to. Leaving behind begins with a self determination to be different from the things you are wanting to leave behind such as a gay/ homosexual lifestyle and the thinking that has caused you to believe you are gay and cannot change. So realizing that gay sex, and a gay mindset is sinful according to Jesus Christ because it keeps you stuck into a way of expressing
        yourself sexually and expressing who are in your identity as sinful. So then you must in your heart renounce those things that have had a pull on you to be a part of. For those who have acted out homosexually they must stop being sexual. For
        those who may not have been sexual but
        believe they are gay or have a gay identity that identifying themselves must stop as well. From the Christian perspective and beliefs base from the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. From my own experience in leaving behind homosexuality in my own life and the countless men and women
        I have counseled and help them, leaving it behind stopping the sex must happen so they can become celibate. But it does not end there for those who have believed that their identity is gay this must
        also be changed. From my pastoral counselor
        experience those who held on to a belief that they were born gay or their identity is gay know matter how hard they try to be celibate or leave homosexuality behind would always fall back
        into living sinfully. For myself personally in order to no longer have homosexual sex and not identify myself as gay individual I had to renounce all of it. Then and not until then could I begin to see myself how God created me to be as a heterosexual male and slowly but surely many other things begin to change within me my thoughts my desires. I did not even begin to pursue being married until
        I knew with my own heart my sexual desires had changed. I was 52 years old when I married my wife, I left homosexuality behind in my early twenties and yes I stayed celibate until I married my wife.
        I did this because I knew and I claimed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior so honoring Christ was and is the most important thing for me as a Christian. Staying celibate for all those years I knew I could do it because Jesus Christ and His desire to change me. I know others whose desires do not change so they live a celibate life and live out of their true Christian identity and in there created state either male or female and they also do this to honor Jesus Christ. In Christianity gay or homosexual is not an identity and neither is heterosexuality it’s how we define or claim our desires sexually. My identity is a new creation in Christ. Being male is how I define my gender, being a heterosexual is how I define my sexual desires. If my sexual desires did not
        change I would not identify myself as a gay person or homosexual I would identify myself as a heterosexual because in my created state that is how God created me. In fallen state or sinful state I sexually acted out as a homosexual and my and identified myself as a homosexual. A Bible verse that may help you understand why we must renounce
        or do away with is in the Book of Ephesians chapter 4, verses 17-24 The Message version says it and describes it what renouncing or leaving behind means;
        Eph. 4:17-24 And so I insist—and God backs me up on this—that there be no going along with the crowd, the empty-headed, mindless crowd. They’ve refused for so long to deal with God that they’ve lost touch not only with God but with reality itself. They can’t think straight anymore. Feeling no pain, they let themselves go in sexual obsession, addicted to every sort of perversion. 20-24 But that’s no life for
        you. You learned Christ! My assumption is that you have paid careful attention to him, been well instructed in the truth precisely as we have it in Jesus. Since, then, we do not have the excuse of ignorance, everything—and I do mean everything—connected with that old way of life has to go. It’s rotten through and through. Get rid of it! And then take on an entirely new way of life—a God-fashioned life, a life renewed from the inside and working itself into your conduct as God accurately reproduces his character in you..
        This verse is what helped me and countless others leave behind the sinfulness of acting believing in a way that is not pleasing to God.

        • brookspj says:

          Thanks for sharing your experiences with me. I would never discount them, but I can’t apply them universally to all cases either. I do appreciate the trust you’ve shown in sharing them though. I think in this particular case she was continuing to identify her as gay, because: 1. According to her own definition as one who experiences homosexual attractions she was, so it was a matter of honesty which I think Christians should respect. 2. She felt that by being honest about her attractions publicly she was giving hope to others who are in her situation. 3. She was claiming her celibacy as a legitimate answer when there is still much debate among Christians as to whether one can change their orientation or whether they may have to struggle with it for life. As to whether persons in general who have homosexual attractions but don’t act on them should cease to identify themselves as gay, I would remind those Christians who are always comparing homosexuality to an addiction that persons who struggled with drinking tend to and are actively encouraged by recovering programs to continue to identify themselves (at least internally) as alcoholics, as a healthy reminder of how easily one can fall off the wagon and return to that life if they forget. I’m not saying I agree homosexuality is comparable to most addictions (in fact I don’t), but I think churches and organizations that teach that it is should at least be consistent in application.

  4. Nick Uva says:

    My antiquated religion says He gave them up to πάθη ἀτιμίας. Inappropriate affections themselves are still a problem.

  5. Joshua Rodd says:

    This should be viewed mostly the same as a staff member who up and announces one day that he considers fornication OK and his views on it have “evolved”.

    The one difference is that this person claimed to be “celibate”, yet clung to an LGBTQ identity. We’re called to be Christians, not LGBTQ Christians. She should have felt no need to identify herself any differently than anyone else who has temptations to sexual sin.

  6. 0pus35 says:

    Of all the places for a (supposedly) celibate homosexual to work – a COLLEGE, for pete’s sake? Surrounded every day by people at their peak of physical attractiveness.

    Whoever was responsible for hiring this woman should be terminated. They might as well have hired a fox to attend the chickens. Someone higher up the ladder was either very naive or had their own hidden agenda.

    • sharon autenrieth says:

      So heterosexual employees aren’t attractive to “people at the peak of their physical attractiveness”?

      • 0pus35 says:

        On conservative blogs we’re accustomed to lesbian trolls, no big deal.

        • Edwin Woodruff Tait says:

          You didn’t answer the question. Rephrased: why is this an argument against hiring homosexuals and not heterosexuals? Or are you just arguing that only married people should work at universities? Isn’t that a bit naive, given how often married heterosexuals wind up sexually exploiting students? (The president of Northwest Nazarene just had to step down because he had done this 25 years ago.)

          • 0pus35 says:

            Your denomination is supposedly evangelical, but judging from your post, obviously homosexuality is well entrenched in evangelical colleges.

    • brookspj says:

      The vast majority of rape cases on college campuses occur among men targeting women. The vast majority of inappropriate student/teacher relationships on campuses are between male professors and female students. If stats are any indicator, I’d say colleges are taking a lot greater risk hiring heterosexual men than lesbian women.

      • 0pus35 says:

        Your opinion is worth every penny I paid for it. You’re just peeved because your post-Christian church is losing members.

        • brookspj says:

          You don’t even know me or what church I attend, but you seem to have an appetite for red herring.

          • 0pus35 says:

            I’ve read your silly posts before, you hate evangelicals, so you must belong to one of those shrinking left-wing churches. I can understand the bitterness.

          • brookspj says:

            I don’t hate evangelicals. In fact some of my good friends are evangelical. I’m a bit too liturgical to identify as such, but I digress. I just call out unchristian behavior in professed Christians when I see it. It’s not my fault if it tends to be evangelicals around here a lot of the time. And I wouldn’t classify my church, which has grown solidly over the last three years, as left-wing, more like middle of the road. Like I said you don’t know me.

          • 0pus35 says:

            I know leftists. Most claim to be “middle of the road.” Between the two religions of liberalism and Christianity, there is no middle ground.

          • brookspj says:

            Yeah, except one of those is not a religion.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            EVERYTHING is middle ground!
            Black and White may distinguish the polarity of some religions, but there are far more people who see themselves in between.
            Talk about “middle of the road”?!

          • 0pus35 says:

            Bug off, I’m trying to have a serious conversation with someone.

          • brookspj says:

            I’ve read your posts too. You seem like the type of person who shoots the messenger when you don’t like the message.

          • Gary Whiteman says:

            Troll

        • MarcoPolo says:

          That’s evolution!
          The Churches that lose parishioners, aren’t losing anything of value, as those wouldn’t be the kind of Christians that any Church would want in it’s pews.

          Although, churches that welcome LGBT people will be the next Big movement!

  7. Carlos says:

    This woman fits the profile of that Rachel Evans, she grew up conservative and is now engaging in a very delayed adolescent rebellion against her parents. That can be amusing in someone who is 17, but it’s pretty silly in someone in their 30s, especially if they’re in a position to influence young people. She will answer to God, as will all apostates.

  8. brookspj says:

    If some of the comments here are any indication of how homosexuals (even though who strive to remain celibate) are viewed and treated in your churches, then I’m left to conclude that the statement that gets repeated a lot these days about “loving sinner, hating the sin” is meaningless in your churches. If being a celibate homosexual in that environment means walking around all the time like you have a scarlet letter sewed on your clothes, then there’s no love there. If it means everyone continues to look at you like you’re dirty and perverse and are actively encouraged to continue to do so by literature and sermons that compare homosexuals to rapists and child molesters, then there’s no love there. If it means the church members will never trust them and always hold them at an arm’s length and quietly wish in the back of their heads that they weren’t there at all, then there’s no love there. If all you see when you look at them is their sin, what good is your claim to love them?

    • Sheri says:

      Yeah, that was really sad, her being forced to wear that scarlet letter.

    • Straight Shooter says:

      When all else fails, accuse your enemy of being a hater – it’s the great liberal ace in the hole. Saves you from having to debate and actually defend your position.

      • brookspj says:

        So you think all the comments about her on this post have been loving and Christian? I love how you’re trying to call me out for accusing people of hatred and yet the immediate response to everything I’ve posted has been to accuse me of hating conservatives. At least be logically consistent here people!

  9. ken says:

    Nothing new here. Many “Christians” were eager to serve as patsies and collaborationists for the Fascists and Communists, and now they are cozying up to the secular humanists.

    Ask yourself the obvious question: If there is no difference between you and a non-Christian, are you really a Christian?

  10. Sheri says:

    She evolved into a non-Christian.

  11. Namyriah says:

    My nephew teaches part-time at a (supposedly) Christian college, he says that most of the faculty and staff sleep around with students, they’re just a little more cautious about it than at a nonreligious school. Most people who go into college teaching do it because it gives them sexual access to lots of people who are young and attractive, and no matter how old or unattractive the teacher might be, students will make themselves available, for the obvious reason. The students see their “Christian” professors behaving this way, so they figure you can be a Christian and have the same swinging sex life that non-Christians have.

  12. MarcoPolo says:

    What a bunch of Hooey!
    To suggest that Ms. Rodgers is in any way less capable of performing her duties because she’s Gay is ridiculous!
    Further more, to suggest that she needs help, or divine guidance is also way out of touch with Life as it is! PLEASE? I know many Christians who aren’t quite so judgemental, and I think they still fall into God’s grace without being so polarized in their religion. Sheesh!

  13. Mark Bell says:

    She’ll end up in some Womyn’s Studies Department at some podunk college – her conversations will consist of rearrangements of the usual cluster of words – sexism, patriarchy, oppression, homophobia. She’ll fit right in with the COEXIST crowd.

  14. The Answer is in Luke 16v16: Law and Prophets were till John, the Baptist and no more. So, Jesus was not Prophet but the Free solitary Son of God, the Christ. That is, we are the sons of Most High Elohim, ParBrahm, Allah, etc. and we being the Royal Priests do not need a hireling Dog-Collared Priests in the Churches but Fellowships.

    I have over 4500 Youtube Videos explaining Parables; channel nijjhar1.

  15. AlphaGirl says:

    If you believe in God then you must believe in Satan because God says he exists on Earth. Satan’s followers are false teachers. In order to deceive the young and ignorant they ignore, distort and lie about God’s Word. Say hello to Satan’s false teacher, Julie Rogers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *