Each month it seems another Christian university is heaved into news headlines for doing nothing more than maintaining Biblical sexual ethics. It’s one of the most demanding queries facing Christian academia: Which schools will uphold their Christian values and which ones will cave to cultural pressures?
On March 4, a column in the Lexington Herald-Leader placed Asbury University in Wilmore, Kentucky, under a microscope after the school allegedly refused to renew the contracts of two professors who are “LGBTQ affirming.”
The two Asbury professors named in the column are Jill Campbell, assistant professor of music education and voice, and Jon Roller, professor and founder of the school’s Worship Arts program.
The column quotes worship leader Derek Chilton, who started a GoFundMe page for Roller, saying, “Jon was told in his tenure meeting, ‘you do not belong here.’ There was no thank you. No appreciation. And no reason for the non-renewal other than Jon being LGBTQ affirming. His contract was not breached, and there was no budget cut.”
According to Chilton, he was one of the first to hear Roller’s account. “Those of you who know him know he would never exaggerate, or make himself look better in any way,” tweeted Chilton.
Remember Bill Mefford, the former United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) senior staff member who disrespected the March for Life with his “I march for sandwiches” sign? He is quoted in the column too. Oddly, Mefford asserts that Asbury University is more conservative than Asbury Theological Seminary (a separate institution). “So I always thought if this is happening at the seminary,” he said, “I can’t imagine what it’s like to be LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming at the University.”
(In August 2019, Mefford signed an open letter–alongside some 70 other Asbury Seminary alumni and current students–chastising seminary faculty, students, and President Emeritus Rev. Maxie Dunnam for their support of the United Methodist Church’s Traditional Plan at the 2019 Special Session of the General Conference.)
The column also quotes David Wheeler, a former Asbury University journalism professor who supposedly left the school for another job due to the university’s position on human sexuality. “It is a tragedy for an institution of higher education to be so closed-minded that they would deny someone tenure for being LGBTQ-affirming,” Wheeler said. “But that is clearly the direction Asbury is going. No room for nuanced views. Only anti-LGBTQ hysteria.”
The “direction” Asbury University is going? How frustrating to have Asbury University accused of “anti-LGBTQ Hysteria” and being “close-minded” when their mission is to tell of Christ’s love and redemption of sins. All sins. It is revisionists who’ve changed course, and determined repentance is not necessary for sexual immorality.
Asbury University was established in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and currently enrolls 1,900 students from more than 20 different nations, according to the school’s website. The “Asbury University Statement on Human Sexuality” makes the school’s faithfulness to traditional sexual ethics abundantly clear. The statement reads, in part:
A faithful interpretation of Scripture affirms the principle that sexual purity honors God and that all forms of sexual intimacy that occur outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage are sinful distortions of the holiness and beauty for which God intended. As members of a larger community, we recognize that stewarding one’s expression of sexual intimacy is a trust that reaches beyond ourselves, extending even to those who may disagree with our beliefs. Therefore, we understand our responsibility to uphold biblical truth in our belief and practice, but in a way that reflects the grace that holiness produces.
More:
We believe that the sin of sexual immorality (e.g., pre-marital sexual behavior, adultery for the heterosexually married person, polygamy, polyandry, pornography, incest, and all forms of same-sex practice) is about the behavior. As sinful fallen creatures, we are all tempted to sin, however, we do not claim those areas of temptation as right and good – and worthy of embrace and celebration. Rather, we unashamedly insist that by the grace of God we are called to live within the biblical boundaries of our sexuality, and are empowered to live in obedience with God’s will and alignment with His purposes as revealed in Scripture. We do not surrender the biblical standard of sexual purity to the prevailing secular culture, nor the definition of “male” and “female” to mean something more or different than a individual’s sex at birth. At the same time, we do pledge to extend compassion and care, providing accountability and assistance as we support all members of our community— students, staff and faculty—in their desire to live consistently with the Christian teaching on human sexuality as described above.
I’ve read many university statements on human sexuality, and don’t believe any are as robust and thoughtful as this pronouncement from Asbury University. Notice the language “we do not surrender the biblical standard of sexual purity to the prevailing secular culture…” I pray more Christian schools would be so bold.
As I stated at the start of this post, the world is waiting to see which Christian schools will uphold traditional sexual ethics and which ones will accommodate cultural trends. The world is waiting to pounce on those who like Asbury who refuse to compromise.
Why sexual ethics? Why the LGBTQ issue that always lands Christian schools in the headlines (and not the innumerable acts of community outreach, service projects, and academic achievements)?
“LGBTQ is not being singled out by churches and institutions who hold to the historic biblical witness but rather by those who seek to legitimize it as normative in the church and Christian academy,” wrote David Prince, pastor of preaching and vision at Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, Kentucky and assistant professor of Christian preaching at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Other sins, which must be unapologetically called what they are as well do not have constituencies seeking normalization and affirmation.”
Prince was one of the first Christian leaders to comment on the Herald-Leader column in his article “Asbury University Chooses the Bible and Institutional Integrity Over the Spirit of the Age.”
“Let us be clear, the Bible-believing church and academy does not believe that sexual sin is beyond the scope of the gospel or carries a greater moral weight than a host of other sins,” explained Prince. “Nevertheless, we rightly resist without equivocation, when anyone suggests that we stop calling sin, sin, and instead start calling it sacred.”
In her column, Herald-Leader columnist Linda Blackford argues that younger Christians “don’t adhere to such narrow perspectives any more,” and she is right. According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, 47 percent of Generation X/Millennial evangelicals favored gay marriage, compared to only 26 percent of boomer and older evangelicals.
A generational divide on the LGBTQ issue does not mean young people’s sentiments outweigh Scripture or the sacrament of marriage. I think it merely means Christian parents, churches, and schools like Asbury University must continue doing their jobs well and teaching the Gospel without compromise and with love. There are young people who hear.
Comment by David on March 9, 2020 at 8:48 am
A 2019 Pew Survey article stated: “While support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily across generational cohorts in the last 15 years, there are still sizable age gaps. For instance, 45% of adults in the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, compared with 74% of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996).” Another article from last year mentions: “In stark contrast, only half of Millennials (49%) describe themselves as Christians; four-in-ten are religious “nones,” and one-in-ten Millennials identify with non-Christian faiths.”
Bible belief usually comes with a big helping of hypocrisy. Passages supporting slavery, genocide, women as property, etc. are carefully ignored. Often this is excused with Old Covenant/New Covenant nonsense despite Jesus stating he had not come to destroy the Law. It seems the Word of the Lord endureth only when it is convenient.
Comment by WAS on March 9, 2020 at 4:35 pm
I guess it would look like hypocrisy to someone who doesn’t understand how to, or chooses not to, interpret Scripture with Scripture. Do you not know this is the method Jesus used? When the Father of Lies was using Scripture to tempt Jesus, Jesus used Scripture to show how the Evil One was wrong. Christ used Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Methodists used to be known for their commitment to holiness–personal holiness–because they understood, to paraphrase CS Lewis, God isn’t very concerned about our happiness; he’s overwhelmingly concerned about our holiness. Kudos to Asbury for keeping the concern on holiness.
Comment by Jim on March 9, 2020 at 7:48 pm
You’re quite the cynic. So those of who believe the Bible as God’s word to mankind do so with hypocrisy. Your beef is with the sovereign God not with Christians. You don’t like the God who is holy and who will adjudicate the unrighteous on the day of Judgement. That is your decision to make. You are free to reject his offer of eternal salvation. But please, give us a break with your nonsensical scapegoating that attempts to justify your unhappiness on the feet of believers who do not claim to have full knowledge of an infinite God.
Comment by Walter Pryor on March 13, 2020 at 5:59 pm
The only reason we are even discussing this is the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and the homosexual movement pushed through legislation allowing same-sex marriages.
If that did not happen, no Christian anywhere would be trying to rationalize this against what God’s word says.
This change in attitude is the result of years of propaganda and indoctrination by the Left. That is all it is!
This sanctioning of homosexual marriage laws was planned during the 1970s by the homosexual movement. It was planned and executed just as a general plans for a war.
Because the Democrats do not believe they sold their souls for a well-organized movement for votes. So did the American Mainstream News companies.
This movement has very few people in it relative to the population of America, yet they garner all the attention of Democrats and the News people.
God is the same always. He never changes because He is God. He does not have to change.
Some sins are an abomination to God. Can a homosexual be saved? Yes! But they must repent!
Comment by JR on March 9, 2020 at 9:25 am
So 2 comments:
1) I notice divorce is left out of the statement. I wonder how many staff and administrative roles are held by divorcees. Jesus was pretty clear about divorce.
2) You can hold this line all you want to. But when an LGBTQ affirming university decides to likewise ‘clean house’ of contrary (traditionalist) voices, don’t pretend that doing so is a travesty. Jesus was pretty clear about hypocrisy.
But to be honest, I’m in general okay with a university deciding where they want to stand and holding their line despite criticism. I may disagree with their view but I do support their right to have one.
Comment by David M on March 9, 2020 at 9:58 am
Until there are better members, these faiths promoting ‘traditional’ faith will NEVER affirm the actual Biblical standard on divorce. Their habit of divorce isn’t included in the ‘pan-sexual’ label for an reason that can NEVER be questioned. And don’t any of us forget that!
Comment by RANDY BURBANK on March 9, 2020 at 4:38 pm
How can you compare divorce with the LBGTQ issue? Those of us who are divorced admitted our sin and followed the admonition to go and sin no more. In contrast to the LBGTQ community will not admit that it’s sin. There is a huge difference.
Comment by JR on March 9, 2020 at 4:45 pm
What did Jesus say?
Simple and easy answer.
What did Jesus say about LGBTQ? [Nothing]
My point isn’t that divorce is a terrible sin. My point is that if you want to go literally biblical on this stuff, you have to own ALL OF IT. And Jesus was really, really clear.
Comment by Jim on March 9, 2020 at 7:22 pm
Based on your brilliant knowledge of scripture since Jesus didn’t “say” anything about slave ownership it’s safe to assume then we are fine in that arena. Oh yes He didn’t say anything about the murder of the unborn and now the just born. That okay according to the Gospel of the JR? The Apostle Paul certainly had something to say about the homosexual lifestyle didn’t he?
Comment by JR on March 10, 2020 at 8:54 am
Fair points. We don’t sell our daughters into slavery anymore, or kill witches, etc. So those adhering to Biblical Inerrancy aren’t really doing it right.
I’m not the one using the Bible as a weapon here, though – merely pointing out that that particular sword has two edges.
Here’s a really fun exercise to try.
IF the Bible is the Word of God, infallible;
And IF Jesus is the Son of God (and part of the Trinity);
Then explain Matthew 19:3-9;
Also explain John 8:3-7.
Now, regarding Paul.
Since I am of the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, filtered through fallible human authors, I can accept that Paul’s own biases could impact what he passed on. In particular, because he was originally a devout Jew (before the Damascus Road incident), it wouldn’t be surprising for him to have particular issues there. FWIW, Paul also had some important things to say about divorce – he was more lenient than Jesus – so who should we listen to on that point?
If you want to go tree by tree, we can. I prefer to look at the forest as a whole.
[disclaimer: I don’t claim to be a theologian, or that my readings and understandings are even wholly consistent. I do my best on that, but I’m a fallible human being.]
Comment by Quartermaster on March 15, 2020 at 3:40 pm
What is your problem with the two passages you cite in Matthew and John.
By the by, Jesus shreds the sexual depravity of the LGTBQ in the first passage (Matt 19:4-5)
Comment by Walter Pryor on March 13, 2020 at 6:09 pm
God’s grace is sufficient for all sins. But those who sin arrogantly will never have those sins forgiven.
Just look at the sexual diseases among this LGBT movement! God forbade sodomy because it is dirty and dangerous sex. Most homosexuals die before the age of fifty. Many, many, commit suicide before that! Homosexuals have by far the most AIDS, HIV, Syphilis, Gonorrhea and other sexual diseases. So why are we allowing the schools to teach homosexual sex? Millions and millions of young vulnerable children will die very young!
I will tell everyone now that every person who supports this type of sex will be held accountable by God! There will be crying and gnashing of teeth. Those people are so ignorant about the eternal pain of Hell.
Homosexuality is an addiction! Homosexuals know this but as long as the Democrats will slavishly bow down to this movement this movement will get more powerful.
Comment by Bob on March 9, 2020 at 10:10 am
So a professor at Harvard Medical gradually converts to a Christian Science religion view that denies the reality of matter, cancer, germs, viruses or disease, and manages to bring that view into his teaching in the interest of balance. Or the law school prof who converts to an embrace of anarchy, understanding all laws are by their very existence unjust, and starts sprinkling lectures with his convictions in the interest of nuance. That seems to be the case here. The college is doing the right and difficult thing…and to be clear i am neither an opponent nor a fan of that school.
Comment by David on March 9, 2020 at 11:18 am
Unlike religion, medicine and science in general are based on observed facts and not beliefs. Yes, there are times where there are disagreements in the interpretation of these facts. However, one cannot just decide to ignore them and remain an ethical scientist. Not all ideas have equal validity. Attempts to bring “fairness” by introducing creationism into schools to balance evolution are intrusions of religion into science. Having said this, religious schools are free to pursue their own policies no matter how outlandish or contrary to general morality except when basic human rights are violated.
Comment by Mike on March 9, 2020 at 9:30 pm
Considering that there is no evidence whatever to support evolution, I would say that your argument is on pretty shaky ground. No one has ever proven any historical statement in the Bible to be false. That includes the idea of creationism. More than one scientist has admitted that he supports evolution only because the alternative, intelligent design, leads to God, and that cannot be tolerated.
Comment by JR on March 10, 2020 at 12:57 pm
“Considering that there is no evidence whatever to support evolution…”
Ok. You go right on believing that and we’ll shake our heads and go on with reality.
“No one has ever proven any historical statement in the Bible to be false.”
:: rolls eyes ::
Seriously, you can just sit in the back and pretend to have a clue.
Comment by Mike on March 10, 2020 at 10:30 pm
Well… just where is the proof for evolution??? Everything I learned about it in high school has by now been proven false. No missing links have been found.
“Seriously, you can just sit in the back and pretend to have a clue.” You can’t come up with something better than that? Sounds like Obama telling Republicans that they can go to the back of the bus.
Comment by JR on March 11, 2020 at 7:53 am
Hi Mike,
here you go:
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=proof+of+evolution
Click on the first option, from LiveScience.com.
Read the article. Learn something today.
Comment by Mike on March 11, 2020 at 8:16 am
I have read and dealt with these ideas before. All of the suppositions that this article expresses can just as easily be answered by intelligent design-indeed, more easily.
The second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that nothing in the universe ever goes upward, but that everything is gradually running down. It is opposed to evolution, which supposedly runs in the opposite direction with the idea that life came from nothing, and gradually evolved from the most primitive forms of life into man.
Comment by JR on March 11, 2020 at 11:58 am
Interesting consideration. That 2nd Law that you quote – what is the closed system that is being used? You have to take the time to define all the relevant pieces if you are going to go using a law.
[Hint: there’s no closed system. And that’s before we get to the cyclical processes argument.]
I can accept the possibility that evolution is the method for Intelligent Design. Problem is, evolution (and therefore ID) runs counter to biblical literalism. In the Bible, God didn’t create proto-creatures and then have them change – he created them as they are, and were thusly named by Adam (who seems to be homo sapien, and had no predecessors).
“No one has ever proven any historical statement in the Bible to be false. That includes the idea of creationism.” – Mike
So is it ID, or is it Creationism? Pick a side, Mike.
And I can give you three items off the top of my head that have been proven false in the Bible. But you don’t believe in science, so there’s not much point in me doing so.
Comment by Mike on March 11, 2020 at 12:37 pm
I don’t know why I bother to answer you, as you are sold out to the idea of evolution being proven science. You remind me of the reporter for the Washington Post some years ago, who claimed that evolution is a proven fact about which there are several theories. Clearly, he didn’t know what he was talking about. and I wonder the same about you.
By the way, there is no conflict between Intelligent Design and Creationism, as either one leads you back to a God Who created everything from nothing. You believe that Nothing created everything from who knows what.
Comment by JR on March 11, 2020 at 1:53 pm
Wow.
Evolution is as proven as quantum physics.
Do we know everything with respect to evolution? No.
Which is the same answer for quantum physics.
That’s how science works. We explore deeper questions, find more information, and generate new questions.
There may be things that we do not understand that may change our view – look up “Caloric Theory of Heat” sometime. Maybe quantum mechanics is actually the footsteps of angels in their dance on the head of a pin – find me the angels and I’ll agree.
“By the way, there is no conflict between Intelligent Design and Creationism, as either one leads you back to a God Who created everything from nothing.”
No. There might be no inherent conflict between ID and evolution, as long as you specify that the mechanism in evolution is driven by God. Prove that, and there’s no issue. But Creationism is inherently in conflict with both, as Creationism “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account”. That does not match ID. Simple test – where did the first … [pick any animal] … rabbit come from? Was it ‘created’ out of the firmament, or was it an evolved creature from a prior rodent parentage? Some kind of proto-rabbit? One of those options is creationism, and one is ID/evolution, and they are distinctly different.
“You believe that Nothing created everything from who knows what.”
That’s news to me. Thanks for telling me what I believe.
I do understand science, and I do not think that it conflicts with a belief in God.
Comment by Mike on March 11, 2020 at 3:43 pm
Here we go again. Intelligent design requires a designer. Evolution does not. If you think it does, you are obviously more confused than I thought. Many scientists have expressed the opinion that their basis for believing in and supporting evolution is that the alternative is a belief in God. In other words, they hold that evolution neither requires nor allows for God.
This is my last post on this thread. You are not going to change my mind, and I guess I am not going to change yours.
Comment by JR on March 12, 2020 at 9:06 am
Evolution is a PROCESS.
And it’s proven that it happens.
The mechanism behind it (species variation over time) seems solid.
Intelligent design is a PROCESS. It is parallel/consistent with evolution, to the point that the mechanism behind it cannot be proven.
Creationism is NOT a process. It’s NEVER been witnessed. No one has seen a fly pop out of nothing.
QED.
Comment by CDR_N on March 12, 2020 at 10:39 am
“Creationism is NOT a process. It’s NEVER been witnessed. No one has seen a fly pop out of nothing.
QED.”
LMFAO! No one has seen a fly pop out of nothing – but the entire apparently Universe did. Yep, that makes sense, nothing to see here – move along.
Comment by JR on March 16, 2020 at 9:41 am
Evolution (being a biological process) does not equal Big Bang Theory. The Bang, while being the current ‘best theory’ on original cosmology, has a lot less evidence in it’s favor than evolution does [which is not the same as ‘no evidence’].
Comment by carr on March 11, 2020 at 3:30 pm
The foundations of modern science arise from Christianity. This extraordinary universe was created by a God who wanted us to know Him. Our world is designed, ordered, and to a great extent knowable and even predictable. Human life in this canon of understanding has purpose, meaning and ultimate destiny. Science is a human effort to understand the physical world God gave us. Scientists suggest what they think are fitting theories of explanation for what they see based on observable data. Because scientists are human they bring to their thinking possible errors, biases, and even emotions. Even the “purest” science isn’t pure. Again, science itself is a collection of observable data only. Theories of science come from someone who puts together his own ideas about that data. The beginnings of our earth, solar system, or universe were not observed by anyone in this discussion. All such ideas rest on faith. Orthodox Christians choose to put their faith in the Elohim of Genesis 1:1. Any other choice for an informed Christian is intellectually dishonest! Our prevailing culture reveals to us that self-love, nihilism, degradation of all things good, and ultimately some form of suicide are the only fruits from years of teaching evolution.
Comment by Karen on March 9, 2020 at 12:06 pm
Praise God, my University is standing strong according to scriptural principles as we understand them. We support and pray ? for continued guidance as you stand strong.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 9, 2020 at 12:20 pm
Your global opening premise is a false dichotomy (binary opposition between science and religion). And injecting mention of creationism into this discussion is a red herring. You may pound the table and yell but it won’t strengthen your case.
Comment by David on March 9, 2020 at 2:21 pm
Religion is not based on observed facts but traditions and beliefs. Science is a whole other business.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 9, 2020 at 5:04 pm
Insisting on an error of modernist logic will not save your case. The prosaic premise of faith versus fact is a false dichotomy and is self-defeating. See Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame), Knowledge and Christian Belief.
Comment by Mike on March 9, 2020 at 9:32 pm
See above comment. By virtue of supporting evolution scientists have shown that they are blinded to the truth.
Comment by Patrick98 on March 10, 2020 at 9:47 am
Well, there is that little matter of over 500 people observing Jesus after he was raised from the dead. That is what sealed the deal for Chuck Colson, who discovered that the apostles continued to believe and proclaim Jesus as crucified and raised, even when they were tortured and killed for it. They did not recant the claim. Why? Because it was true, they observed it.
Comment by Shiphrah Puah on March 9, 2020 at 2:13 pm
Wow. We did not even consider UMC schools assuming they were all polluted. I wish I had known there was a Christ-first UMC institution.
Comment by shakes my head in despair on March 10, 2020 at 10:35 am
It is truly amazing to hear these responses. I mean, isn’t it obvious that positively sanctioning the LGBT… movement has been such a positive for children, families, civil society, the witness of the church, and our society in general. My, it is such a good thing that if you disagree with woke orthodoxy there is no place for you in civil society.
So if, as some you decide, we should dump in the trash 2 millenia of belief, scriptural understanding, and practice then why are you attacking divorced people and those who try to hold up scriptural norms? It sure wasn’t the conservatives in the church and society that loosened the bonds of marriage for some people’s inconvenience.
If you don like Asbury’s stand then find some decent arguments for instead of being hypocrites and accusing others of being exactly what you are.
Comment by Jim on March 10, 2020 at 12:27 pm
Not so fast JR – you skipped over the killing of the unborn & very recently the leftist extension to the “just” born. That a problem in your belief system?
Comment by JR on March 10, 2020 at 1:08 pm
Hi Jim,
The discussion is waaay up there. I almost missed your comment.
But let me be clear here. You can move the goalposts all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that biblical literalists do a terrible job of following the Bible. They make excuses on some points while sticking firm to others.
So let’s see what the Bible does actually say.
I believe the only reference that could be attributed to addressing abortion is Exodus 21:22–23.
However, over 1000 years of rabbinical scholarship have set the fine for the premature birth, and the death penalty for the death or serious injury to **the pregnant woman**. [Feel free to go ask your local Rabbi on that point.]
And since nobody else in the Bible addresses this – not Jesus, not Paul, nobody – I’d say that pretty much ends the debate.
Have a blessed day!
Comment by Jim on March 10, 2020 at 1:19 pm
You aren’t answering my question of YOU
Comment by JR on March 10, 2020 at 4:32 pm
Your question isn’t clear.
Are you asking where I stand on the topic of abortion? I can be pretty clear on that. I thought you wanted a Biblical interpretation, which is what I went with.
I’m personally against abortion. I think it’s a terrible option. However, since I cannot and will not force someone to follow my religious views, I cannot and will not force someone to not have a choice (also known as free will).
However, because I do want to stop abortions from happening, I work to reduce root causes. Poverty is the #1 cause of elective abortions, with ‘lack of moral fiber’ being the #2. Adequate education and accessible prevention are up there as well.
I hope that answers your questions. Feel free to ask more – I’m not afraid of my stances.
Comment by Jim on March 19, 2020 at 4:54 pm
I am personally against racism but I will not force someone to conform to my religious views. I am personally against pedophilia but I will not force someone to conform to my religious views. I am personally against anti-semitism but I will not force anyone to conform to my religious views.
Such a convenient response JR. Your sanctimonious doublespeak is not only pathetic, it is cowardly.
Comment by Jim Young on March 10, 2020 at 3:18 pm
This all seems to be missing the point at hand. These professors were not dismissed because of doctrinal issues. It was that they supported individuals who identified as LGBT. Every school has the right to hold to certain beliefs, but for a “Christian” school to dismiss faculty for supporting students is unconscionable. Jesus was seen as a teacher even by unbelievers. That means He would have listened and spoken about people and issues…..when we shut off dialogue and when we try and suppress openness, then it is the very opposite of the example Christ gave us.
I am an alumnus of Asbury and I am embarrassed to even acknowledge that at this point.
This type of rigidity is no different from radical Muslim fundamentalism or any other religion or movement that does not tolerate differing opinions or discussion.
Comment by Lamar Aiazzi on March 11, 2020 at 12:14 pm
CBS News, hardly a conservative news outlet, had the integrity to publish the latest genetic findings: there is no gay gene.
What’s that mean? It means the LGBT assertion that gays are “born that way” is entirely false, and the position that has found its way into our public schools that says as much isn’t education, it’s indoctrination, i.e. brainwashing. Gen Xers and Millennials have been subjected to that. The genetic study has, essentially, proven the Bible correct–homosexuality is a matter of choice not a genetic imperative. While LGBT excusers go on to claim homosexuality is more “complicated” it isn’t. It’s a matter of making the right choice. Asbury’s staunch defense of Biblical sexual morality is true and courageous.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-gay-gene-new-study-no-single-gene-drives-sexual-behavior-complex-mix-of-genetic-and-other-influences-2019-08-29/
Comment by JR on March 11, 2020 at 2:01 pm
How many genes regulate eye color?
Comment by Mike on March 11, 2020 at 3:57 pm
“JR says:
‘How many genes regulate eye color?” ” What does that have to do with the subject at hand? There is no gay gene.
Period.
“Asbury’s staunch defense of Biblical sexual morality is true and courageous.” Reminds me of the story of Athanasius. He stood for the true faith in the fourth century, and was persecuted by the Roman emperors and other church leaders who did not believe as he did. He was exiled five times, to the deserts of North Africa. On one occasion, the emperor said to him, “Athanasius, give it up. The whole world is against you.” He replied, “Well then, Athanasius is against the world.”
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 11, 2020 at 4:56 pm
Good work here, Pilgrim. Don’t take off your gospel armor until the battle is won. I’ll be savoring your next fearless riposte. You encourage many readers.
Comment by JR on March 12, 2020 at 9:15 am
The number of genes that regulate eye color matters.
Because there’s not ‘just one’.
It’s a combination of several – 2 major ones and several minor ones.
You seem awfully eager to accept ‘science’ declaring something when the headline (and only the headline, as you clearly didn’t read the whole article) fits your preconceived notions, yet disregard science when it does not fit those notions.
For the record, Science doesn’t care. But Jesus does say something about hypocrites, so you might want to walk softly.
Comment by Mike on March 12, 2020 at 11:18 am
We were originally talking about the existence of, or lack thereof, a “gay gene”. Stay on the subject.
Also I found something that might interest you;
https://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design-vs-evolution.htmIntelligent ” Design vs. Evolution is a new, high stakes game. Intelligent Design is the theistic answer to mainstream science, while Darwinian evolution is the creation story of atheism. Intelligent Design allows for meaning and purpose, while evolution is the tale of nothing becoming everything through an incremental, unguided process of random change and adaptation.”
I have pointed out that Intelligent Design is not compatible or synonymous with evolution. You have argued the opposite. You are clearly wrong.
Comment by JR on March 16, 2020 at 9:46 am
Actually, I said they are the same as long as you define the driver of the process. We know it happens, and ID really is parallel to evolution.
And it’s come up because creationism is complete bunk. But hey, you biblical literalists can keep visiting that replica ark in Kentucky like it’s more valid than Disneyland….
Comment by David on March 11, 2020 at 5:31 pm
The report, which I knew about previously mentions no single gene. That does not rule out a combination of genes having an effect or that hormonal conditions in the womb might feminize or masculinize the brain. Unfortunately, the second cannot be so easily studied in living persons. We know that there are physical differences between the male and female brain.
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
Comment by Mike on March 11, 2020 at 5:52 pm
There may be a combination of genetical factors which might orient one toward the gay lifestyle. Certainly people who have artistically inclined natures are more likely to be that way than those who are more inclined toward science. But that doesn’t make it right to engage in such behavior. After all, approximately one out of seven persons who take the first drink of alcohol will turn out to be alcoholics, but we do not commend or excuse the alcoholic.
Comment by Vivorn on March 11, 2020 at 8:49 pm
Rob Jensen we can not cherish or respect believes just because someone or some group decided to belief in something. We need to examine the evidence whether something is moral or not base on how it benefit the well being of the society, not because the creator of the universe somehow is fixated on how tinny life form on a spec of dusk in the universe have sexual intercourse and in what position.
Comment by Fr. Timothy Cremeens, PhD on March 13, 2020 at 6:08 pm
BRAVO for Asbury!
Comment by Dotty Riley on March 15, 2020 at 1:10 pm
My grandfather was a graduate of Asbury Seminary in 1905. He later became a Nazarene as he thought the Methodist were getting to liberal. I am a Methodist,who supports the traditional plan. JR mentioned Jphn 8 :3-7. He failed to go on to the conclusion of that conversation.Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. That is relevant to his point.
Comment by JR on March 26, 2020 at 9:09 am
So we’re pretty far removed now from the ID vs Evolution vs Creationism argument, and I don’t expect anyone to really come back here and continue it.
But let me address the current pandemic in those terms.
IF you believe in ID, and you believe that God is actually making these little tweaks to genetics, then God has come out and killed off over 20k people as of this morning (3/26) and is likely to clear out a death total over 100k before it runs it course (and the worst case scenario has it being a couple of million lives).
IF you believe in Creationism, then this virus has been there all along – created by God, just biding it’s time. Then you can hang those same totals on Him.
IF you accept that evolution is part of the ‘basic science’ of how our Universe works, then there’s no direct blame on God (you could argue that an omnipotent/omniscient God allowed this to happen, if you want to go there).
Pick your poison. I go with #3.
Comment by The Rev. Robert RM Bagwell+ Duke Divinity Class of '86 on March 28, 2020 at 8:16 pm
Let me say to all of you who pro-port to be good Methodists, that you are great at grabbing the gavel from Jesus, ready to push the Trinity off the throne. What happened to Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience? Do you know how many gay persons believe in the Bible as much as you claim to, but are put into an impossible situation of loving Jesus, repent of sins and trust in Christ, but have things about themselves that God doesn’t seem to change, they do not change themselves no matter how many times they repent, and live in self hatred, hiding from “loving Christians” may I say that you would describe yourselves to be, yet would prefer self hating or suicidal LGBT Christians to commit suicide or only believe that Jesus hates them because his self appointed magistrates rather than loving them continue to force these brothers and sisters in Christ to live in secrecy and shame while you point out their orientation to others and think they are doing Jesus and Holy Spirit’s job FOR THEM! What would Jesus do? What would a Wesley do? I believe at times Puritanical albeit Arminian Wesleyan Methodists would prefer they fake their orientations and go to hell so as not to offend the the “standard holders” of particular views of truth because of their interpretation of the Bible. How much do you really know? To what end is your outrage? Where is the gospel emphasis, the holiness, the cell groups and the love of the Wesleyans of days past? I know there are alot of sins that “good people” still commit regularly, years after a profession of faith, but that’s ok, they aren’t gay! Usually not joyful either, may I say. So go, judge, separate, but don’t weep over division in the body of Christ. Pray for those who disagree with you. Wasn’t there something about loving your enemies? Let Holy Spirit do His job and why don’t you just focus on becoming more like Jesus. If that isn’t right, does any of the rest matter? Well, does it?