It makes me proud to be faith-linked to this past and present awareness of social justice. And props to Dick Osborn for taking leadership over the institutional affects.

Not until the official church eliminates all gender barriers to clergy will we be free of discrimination. We are soon to have either the first female President or the first Black President of the U.S. Yet, while two-thirds of SDA membership is represented in a much smaller portion of ordained clergy, and a very small portion of representatives on conference boards, we have a long way to go.

It makes me immensely proud to know that students from my alma mater were involved in these key events so long ago and that PUC took responsibility for injustices in the past. Yes, there are still barriers to bridge, but this was an important acknowledgment and a very positive step.

Dr. Fultons remark, "Is it African-Americans, is it Hispanics, is it Muslims, is it Arabs, immigrants, homosexuals? Who are the people that we are making the ‘other,’ that we are making to feel outside the family of God? Maybe in a small way we can spend some time thinking about ways we can change that.”

It is my belief that many African-Americans would be offended by being associated with "rights" and the concept of Homosexuality or immigration. One issue deals with race and the way we are. The other relates to choices and behaviors we have made in life.

PS. I was in Atlanta and at Loebs restaurant in downtown Atlanta in about 1964 and told the Ku Klux Klan to leave Dick Gregory alone when he tried to enter the restaurant.

Dear Pat,

I do not what the focus of this comment thread to be diverted. I invite you to read the following two articles by a widely respected Christian, "family values" researcher at the Reformed Hope College in Michigan.

The first one deals lucidly withthe common misconceptions about homosexuality and choice.
http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=90

The second is a more scholarly survey that provides the evidence.
http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=62

I invite your thoughtful response to the evidence by email.

Alex,
Varying views from above conclusions can be found on:

WWW.NARTH.COM ...including research regarding "born that way".

Regards

Yes, Pat, there are a variety of ideas. Apparently existence equals validity to you. The question is not, are there people who offer differing viewpoints?, but rather: what is the quality and data integration of their ideas?

This is similar to your approach in denying human-caused global warming. (Like you just linked to NARTH, you linked to the Oregon petition & I've noticed that you haven't admitted that it is bunk, but you also haven't defended it either).

If you're going make a statement like you did about sexual orientation and choice in the future, the responsible thing to do would be to offer some evidence that you've engaged the other side. An example of that is here.

Did you have thoughts about the articles to which I linked? Beyond a quick google for the other side.

I think that PUC did good and that they should be commended for addressing past injustices and matching that with a determination to do better in the future. That determination is what Fulton suggested in his talk. I think it's a good point.

All in all Knott hits the nail in the head when he says that remembering these stories of past abuses is an important part of ensuring we don't continue oppressing those, or other, minority groups.

These stories which Knott reminds us not to forget point to a lesson which says that relegating minorities to the margins of our campus jobs, degrees, dining room tables, dorms pews _and_ pulpits is wrong. Indeed we are all part of the family of God.

Johnny, well said. Now if we would not relegate the majority (female members) to the margins, we might have room to crow.

Is it possibly a fear that the majority may eventually rule over the males in the church? When there are even now a majority of female college graduates than male, that is not an unfounded fear. Women have too long been voiceless in the church while doing the unrecognized errands--relegated to minding tables, preparing for communion but rarely participating publicly, and as wives of ministers have stood beside them in doing the "supporting" allowing him to be more successful. We may soon see the greatest role reversal in our own government. Will that be a watershed?

Strange that while we seem to engage in self flagellation with respect to past events over which most of us had no control those who admire MLK almost never speak about his womanizing.

If it's appropriate to self flagellate, isn't it also appropriate to point out MLK's female capers?

Is this Pseudoscience?

http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

Your Friend,

Yes, I believe it is well know that MLK was a "womanizer" yet I maintain that does not undermine the legitimacy of His call that blacks be treated equally under law.

Regards

Your Friend makes a handy racist remark. Would it be considered self-flagellation from a black perspective? And frankly after an American history of actually flagellation, even racist killing, I think that we're all man and women enough to survive a few words of forgiveness.

Pat, did you actually read the article?

As I read through the article, I actually thought: this piece seems to be mixing his wider statements about the "God gene" hype to stretch a point about homosexuality. With that alarm bell ringing, I did a quick search since I like to read both sides of an argument.

And oh look! Here's Francis Collins responding to this exact article:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/major-geneticist-francis-collins-re...

It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.

Wow! Those NARTH folks are pretty intellectually dishonest. I hope that through comparative analysis, it becomes clear that some folks have to distort reality to make the case that homosexual love is bad.

Now we could have a long conversation, which I'm happy to do via email, but this is a post on racism and I'd like to keep it on topic since homosexuality clearly tends to overwhelm.

Alex,
My LAST comment online on this subject.

Did Collins say this? If he did not then he WAS misquoted: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

"nothardwired" means choice!

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind! In 1960, I accepted at Black Applicant into the Orthodontic program at LLU. He was also a Roman Catholic but a non-smoker and non-drinker according to his application form. The School of Graduate Studies rejected him. He applied the next year, this time the School of Graduate Studies accepted him. He graduated with high marks. He and I worked on a epidemiology study at a SDA boarding academy. We roomed together during a three day field trip.

Years later he and his wife were our guests for the Master's Golf Tournement in Augusta, Ga. He went on to become Vice President of the American Dental Association. He remains a strong supporter of LLU School of Dentistry.

Later in my role at the Medical College of Georgia we doubled the number of Black dentists practicing in Georgia in our first decade from 1971 to 1981. Not without more than one death threat and well as every imaginable professional retaliation. MGC was rejected for an affirmative action grant. We appealed through Senator Nunn's office. We were granted an interview with the Department of Health and Human Services. We were greeted by a second level staff person and told frankly that Senator Nunn could get us an interiew but he couldn't get us funding. We made our case. He asked to be excused. He returned with the Department Head. He asked that we repeat our case. Which of course we did. At the end of the presentation: The head asked the staff person if there was any funding unallocated. He said very little. The Head then asked are there funds not expended by other grantees? The staff person said, a little. The head said, go and round up as much money as you can. The staff returned with a figure of 68,000. about half of our grant application. The head asked if we could rewrite our application for 68,000. I said yes. He said, here is the phone. Call your staff at MCG and dictate a new application for 68,000 and have it faxed to me personally. If you have it on my desk in three hours. 68,000. is yours. I called, dictated, my staff rewrote the grant and faxed it and we left with 68,000 for fund aid for black students with a promise of 4 more years at the level of our initial request.

We were graduating eight black dentists annually while the University of Minn. was graduating one and they had gotten the funding on the first round. It seems that Georgia was paswed over simply because of its history.

Since that time we have had at least two of our graduates serving on the State Board of Dental Examiners, a number on the faculty, and more in active dental politics in the Georgia Dental Association from which they were banned until the 1970's. That does not mean that on the day of Martin Luther King death the windows of my office were not broken.

Never-the-less, On Martin Luther King day, I wrote the speach for the President of the Medical College of Georgia which he read at Payne College a Methodist Black College across the street from MCG. Each year the President of Paine College asked for a copy which was published in the journal of the United Fund for Black Colleges.

The Georgia Congressman who directly threatened me more than once and challenged me in debate before the Georgia Legislature, in which case I always prevailed., died recently and President Bush named the local V.A. hospital after the Congressman. Just the same, I would rather have my history than his. Tom

Tom, I so much enjoy your stories you have stored in your memory! The wisdom of one who has experienced much of life deserves to be shared. Thank you.

Then must one conclude that all those who continue to emphasize that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child by a Black slave are racist if one follows Carpenter's skewed reasoning? Incidentally, it may well be that Jefferson did not father a child by a Black slave as the evidence is not conclusive.

Doesn't it seem strange, incidentally, that scant attention is given to the Great Emancipator, Honest Abe, when his natal day rolls around? Is that some sort of reverse racism?

I'm wondering if this apology is Adventist-campus-wide - can we infer contrition from academies and other colleges? I'm actually quite grateful that I didn't attend academy or [Adventist] college because of the issues that many of my friends dealt with while they were there. [The only drawback being that I probably lost my chance at finding an Adventist mate. Before Insight updated their site, they actually had a question regarding the lack of eligible Adventist guys, in which the person answering the question admonished the young lady to get to an Adventist college and chastised those of us who didn't go and had the nerve to complain. But I digress.]

I'm not that old, but I remember my friends telling me about how their parents were called [in Academy] because they were talking to people of another race. In the 90s. Needless to say, being the product of an interracial marriage, I never could reconcile this with the actual following of Christ. I'm glad PUC made a statement. I'd like to see more schools follow suit - and back it up with action.
jen*

Pat,
referring to the quote:
“Is it African-Americans, is it Hispanics, is it Muslims, is it Arabs, immigrants, homosexuals? Who are the people that we are making the ‘other,’ that we are making to feel outside the family of God? Maybe in a small way we can spend some time thinking about ways we can change that.”

Regardless of nature/choice issues, no human (including resolute mass murderers, drug pushers, KKK, any race, Bush, conservative pundits, liberal pundits etc...) should be made to feel "outside the family of God" (certainly by any Christians here!) and spending some time "thinking about ways to change that"(to make them feel included and loved) is very needed indeed.

True love without discrimnation flowing like a river....
"outsiders" means more than the traditionally targeted groups, right? It's everyone outside our comfort zone.

Arlyn,

In one sense "all are God's children" But "all of Gods children are not saved."

1 John2:22-3:24; Gal.3:26.

PS. Thanks Arlyn for going back and seeing what started the conversation that later included "homosexuality" due to that comment.Alex began the longer discussion by the "choice" aspect.

On the other hand, no one is sinless either.

But the messy thing about salvation is that knowing who really is saved, is God's business. Our job on earth is just to make laws, keep morality rolling along, treat folks as we'd want to be treated if we were Other -- I mean them.

There's no Biblical evidence for dividing up human society in a big God's children circle and a smaller, just us saved circle. Everything overt that Jesus taught on the subject left the reaping (tears and wheat together) and the dividing (sheep and goats) until the end of time.

And since we actually don't know who will be saved until the end of it all, perhaps our job isn't to discriminate between all God's children.

"He drew a circle and shut me out,
Rebel, heretic, a thing to flout,
But love and I had the wit to win,
We drew a circle and brought him in."

We are ALL God's children. Will he deny us as his children? Do we even consider denying the paternity of our children? Is God less loving than us?

I remember reading Bill Knott's article on this subject several years ago. One of the most memorable pieces in the Review. Something many people forget is the fact that Adventists facing workplace discrimination often rely on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - brought about as a direct result of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s work and the Civil Rights Movement.

When we fight for the rights of the oppressed in society, we are fighting for our own rights as well. (Not that this should be our motive.) When we ignore the rights of the oppressed, we are delaying our own rights. That we ignored the rights of our own African American members is a disgrace in and of itself, and this stained rather than elevated our moral standing.

As an organization, the church should have been on the frontlines of the civil rights movement just as we were on the front lines of the abolitionist movement. Something happened between the 1860s and the 1960s to convince us not to get involved in the "social gospel" and it set us back tremendously. Finally we are starting to catch up to our true calling.

We have a chance now to do something about human trafficking, government sponsored torture, persecution overseas, and any number of other key issues. These are the issues that are on our plate - and we don't have to wait until the end of the world to get involved, or for a Sunday law to decide that maybe it is time to care about what is going on. God has given us the talent and mission to get involved and to help the poor, widows, and orphans; to uplift the oppressed and cry out for justice. He has not set us on a shelf to simply watch and see. The founders of our church understood this, and we should too.

Forty years from now, I hope people will look back and say we did what we should have done. I pray that they will not feel the need to apologize on our behalf.

ah, but how do we treat God's children who are unsaved?
we "wash their feet." Jesus showed us with Judas.

Good Morning Arlyn,

This was my original comment... "It is my belief that many African-Americans would be offended by being associated with "rights" and the concept of Homosexuality or (illegal)immigration. One issue deals with race and the way we are. The other relates to choices and behaviors we have made in life." (I still maintain the validity of the comment...perhaps some members of the Black community can comment on Fulton's "grouping" as relates to their civil rights as a people)

NOTHING I said says all people should not be treated kindly and with respect...I agree wih your comment:"ah, but how do we treat God's children who are unsaved?
we "wash their feet." Jesus showed us with Judas."

None of this however means that we do not call certain behaviors sin."Speak the truth in Love."

In "civil" society(kingdom of this world) there is "inclusivity" of many faiths, actions and peoples.In the "loose" sense that God is the creator of all things..."all are His children" rebellious though we be.

In the kingdom of Christ one enters by faith in Christ. The Spirit both moves to both repentance and to the acceptance of Christ that brings entry into the family of God.1 Jn.2:22-3:2.
Thus I said, "All God's Children" in the "loose" sense are not "saved children" or a part of God's spiritual family of the "promise."

The "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of this world" are two separate entities which do not share mutual membership on the basis of simply being a created being.One is "spiritual" and one is of the "flesh" and human descent.Rom.9:8.

As to Fulton's "the other" and "outside the family of God", what did Christ mean in Jn.8:42-44.

It is my belief that the Christian message is not that we are already in the spiritual and saved "family of God" but that we are called to Repentance and faith in Christ for entry into the kingdom of His dear son.Upon entry in Christ,we are reckoned as righteous while in the process of growing in holiness and obedience to His will.This is the great commission of the church.

Clarified and understood...though you perhaps disagree with?

Good morning Pat!

I don't disagree at all. I enjoyed the ambiguity in the phrase "washed his feet", so I left it alone.

To be willing to wash- humble loving service and inclusion
To then wash- find the soap, towel, water and CHANGE the state of.

I particularly like the fact that Jesus said of Judas Iscariot- "Did I myself not choose you, the twelve and yet one of you is a devil?" Acceptance with truth.

The Family paradigm has many levels of application, biological, relational, reciprocal. And we are in or out depending on which one Jesus was using at the moment.

Jesus was a Jew! Yesterday, I watched "How its Make" They were showing how little baby Jesus was made as a wax figure.
The wax was pink. The baby had a full head of blonde curls,
The eyes were blue, The eyebrows blonde, the lips bright red.

We make God in our image and we accept only those with similar views and tastes.

It would take someone who went to church on the "wrong day" to have emphathy for other societal rejects.

Before, we praise the young too much we must remenber that the playground can be a very cruel place.

I am glad for the testimony and courage of these young students. Tom

Here's a link to Bill Knott's original Review article - it is well worth reading. http://www.adventistreview.org/2005-1521/story1.html

On the assumption that this site really does mean it when it claims to want open and balanced and honest dialog (an assumption that, unfortunately, is all too often hard to justify) and on the further assumption that participants here (me, for example; at this moment) have some obligation in facilitating the reality of “good” discussion, I need some help in parsing out what’s going on here.

Alex seems peeved that Pat (instead of speaking in generalities and risking not being heard, I’ll use actual names for clarity -- if that’s OK?) is somehow diverting the thread off topic from Racism to homosexuality. But isn’t it a frequent habit of all participants here to bring in other topics -- especially ones which have been discussed on this very site? In the past, I would apologize and ask if it was OK to bring up X, which was not directly pertinent to a current conversation, but might have some interesting tie-in. And, till now, it seems to have been accepted.

Now it seems obvious to me that Pat was using the very words of the speaker himself (Fulton) who conflated ALL minority groups who might be made to feel “outside” the family of God. And this seems perfectly legitimate observation. Why do I feel this observation of Pat’s is legitimate? Because I’ve had this explicit conversation with black Christian friends who did NOT want to see “their issue” thought of in the same terms as the homosexuality issue…. Very very different -- they insisted… Now along these lines (without, hopefully, being accused of diverting the thread) I would draw us back to the recent thread on homosexuality where our friend Dave Larson explicitly tried to equate society’s treatment of homosexuals WITH slavery. (In this sense, “they” are our slaves Dave said…) Yes yes, a very narrow application and point I’m sure Dave would protest. But I remembered thinking then of my prior conversation with my black friends. And how ANGRY it made them to have others issues equated WITH slavery. For in their minds, that demeaned and diminished badly what THEIR forefathers had experienced. (Maybe sorta like it irritates modern liberals to hear the Christian Right complain about being persecuted in this country; it dilutes the meaning OF the word “persecution” to use it so easily and indiscriminately!)

But really; wouldn’t it be best to dispense with the pretense of fair discussion when one side feels it’s not only their right, but an obligation to commandeer and deploy those lovely words “bigot” and “racist”? (At least Alex waited a whooping 13 posts before hurling the epithet; young R Thompson started right out with it in the body of his presentation!) I mean, if we’re gonna play “Cowboys & Indians” and one side ALWAYS gets to be the Cowboys, pretty soon the Indians decide the game is rigged. And walk away.

Above intended as “constructive criticism”; to the extent the “constructive” part is missed, just forget what I said…

To the topic... Specifically the idea of “apologizing” to those not directly involved, by those who didn’t even do it. ie the idea of modern Whites apologizing for slavery.

One of the most profound books I’ve ever read is “The Sunflower” -- by Simon Wiesenthal. In it, he tells the story of being in a prison camp which also had a hospital for wounded German soldiers. One day a nurse takes Simon to the room of a blind and dying young German soldier. This soldier has insisted the nurse find “a Jew” of whom he could ask forgiveness and seek some sort of absolution and release. Before he died. Simon listens in stunned and horrified silence as the young German confesses his evil deeds; he has burned down a house with live Jewish women and children still inside. And he was yet haunted by their screams as they burned alive. And he was remorseful and wanted to die in peace.

In what seems cold and cruel and maybe selfish, Simon listened in silence, then walked away. He never gave the clearly conscience stricken soldier the peace he wanted. The crime, he felt, was not against him, so could not be forgiven BY him. To do so would be, in his mind, to grossly demean and diminish the horror and evil done. For him, the forgiveness OF that evil was only properly given by the ones so egregiously brutalized. To presume to do this for them was a grave insult to THEIR dignity. To THEIR suffering. He would not do it.

Wiesenthal then turns to the reader and asks; did I do the right thing? The last two thirds of the book contain the answers of writers, thinkers, theologians of all stripe, journalists, and religious (mostly non-Christian) leaders. Perhaps no book encapsulates for me the nature of the Christian message than does this book.

So, sorry to be contrarian, yet again, but I don’t take much personal stock in these sorts of public apologies for the sins of our fathers against your fathers. Far too showy, with little substance. IF one feels compelled to do something, better to get busy and rail against the sins of exclusion in our own selves and tribes. And eliminate racism from ones OWN life. Just look at the racial makeup of our own GC -- and the fact we STILL don’t ordain women… Man -- this looks like one non-stop endless round of apology into the deep future. And somewhere deep in that future will be a group of liberals, profoundly remorseful and full of regrets for the hatred towards and marginalization of, way back in the early 2000’s, that despised minority… that marginalized “other”… ...the wicked Christian Right.

Certainly, apologizing for slavery would seem to be outside the realm of the president of an Adventist college. Apologizing for the racist acts the administration did/sponsored/encouraged, coupled with the demonstration of changed behavior is most definitely within his purview.

It's true that I, myself, have not been a slave. That doesn't mean that I am unaffected by the legacy of slavery in this country. Because it was my father, and not me, that lived through Jim Crow, should I just say, "Oh well, it was in the past"? [Many believe I should.]

Maybe these issues are simpler for those who are less affected. To me, apologizing for wrongs is part of the responsibility of a Christian organization that purports to follow Jesus.
jen*

Bob

One forgives not simply to give peace but to find peace!
I could name you at least ten insults I received from Dr. Web Prince before and during his tenure as Dean. Yet I rejoice that his name is on the School of Dentistry at LLU. For all of his faults, he was a prince of a man. I owe him a lot, so does LLU, and the Profession of dentistry. I was fortunate to be the one designated to honor Dr. Prince at his retirement. He was a great guy and a Christian in a very manly sense of the word. The SDA church needs more just like him. I remember vividly commissioning Dr. Baum to escort Mrs. Web Prince to the Podium to receive a plaque in honor of Web after his passing. There are giants in the history of the Church. Far too many are namelss.

Tom

As for the conflation of all marginalized groups, there are similarities and differences. I don't want to get into 'oppression olympics' here, but I have thought about how racism/colorism is so easily based on something visible, something people cannot hide or change.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals can simply *stop*, but that it has been much easier for them to go undetected. Hence the concept of 'in the closet'. Rarely, black [or brown] people can 'pass', but for the most part, you can't be "in the closet" when it comes to the color of your skin. To me, this is where the comparisons fail. I would not reference the idea that more African-Americans are on the fence about their attitudes toward homosexuality [though popular], because I simply can't speak for them all.
jen*

" One issue deals with race and the way we are. The other relates to choices and behaviors we have made in life."

"None of this however means that we do not call certain behaviors sin. "Speak the truth in Love."

The first is not a widely held opinion in our society today, and particularly by those most able to speak knowledgeably. One is BORN into a race, no choice was made by that individual. OTOH, to state that one's sexuality was a conscious choice, is an opinion, not widely held.
Unless an individual is gay, he or she is the only one who can say he wasn't born that way but he made a conscious choice. Don't attempt to speak for others. Silence on other's personal life demands silence.
No one can say with all certainty, that in all cases, one's sexuality was chosen, unless all heteros can remember the day when they decided to become hetero. Comprende?

Why should anyone feel called to speak out on anyone's behavior as sin? Sin is something that the individual must feel the Holy Spirit is telling him, not another sinner. Unless asked, one should never declare someone's actions as sin, and there is no way one do it in love without first being asked. That is a self-righteous assumption which should be squelched whenever the urge arises.

Elaine,
Since you persist in changing the topic heading and since you have demonstrated in word that you do not hold that scripture is the inspired word of God then you can not appreciate that some of us feel it is important to “contend for the faith.” Science has not concluded that Homosexuality is more than a “propensity.” Many of us, including myself have many “propensities” that are out of harmony with scripture. Having accepted Christ as Savior and Lord, through the Spirit we are to overcome by grace those propensities of practicing sin “willingly.” We may fail but we do not call what scripture calls a sin acceptable or good.
By faith, we are reckoned righteous in Christ and are to overcome sin “gradually” as empowered by the Spirit. Yet we will not be sinless until His appearing when we are changed. I am no ones judge… but scripture is. May others as well as myself find refuge in Christ, our justifying Savior, the atonement for sin.

Pat, I refer you to your statement:

"It is my belief that many African-Americans would be offended by being associated with "rights" and the concept of Homosexuality or (illegal)immigration. One issue deals with race and the way we are. The other relates to choices and behaviors we have made in life."

I did not bring up homosexuality. It was your statement above that I was addressing. While Science may not have reached a positive conclusion, it seems that for some Christians they are able to make that assessment themselves, in spite of the fact that Jesus, who Christians profess to follow, made not one single statement about it.

Since you state the belief that we will not be sinless until we reach heaven, and you are able to identify what is sin, why not let Scripture together with the Holy Spirit guide others? Or do you feel it is your duty to point out OPS (other people's sins)?

While each of us is responsible for interpreting the Bible, shouldn't we agree that it will never be interpreted exactly by Christians? If so, shouldn't we let it be between the individual and God?

Pat, the folks who do hold the opinion that homosexuality has less to do with choice than with unconscious and genetic factors tend to be the folks who are actually studying it. It's telling that your earlier use of the NARTH link turned out to be a twisting of Collins' research as Collins himself pointed out. Now usually the intellectually responsible thing to do is recognize and avoid these distortions of the science, but there seems to be a pattern. When finger-wagging at gay folks dovetails with denying global warming and the six-day creationism, it becomes clear the sort of reasoning involved. The kind that treats the Oregon petition as science.

This also tends to be a generational issue. Frankly, the majority of men and women under forty just don't care -- even the next generation of evangelicals find this a distraction from the great commission. Now, some might attribute this non-gay obsession to our "more sinful state" but like the declining numbers of folks who want to divide the world into blacks and whites, this just might be more about old patterns of sexual discomfort and repression and the facts are that each year shows more and more folks getting over this desire to call the touching of same-gender lips a sin.

Perhaps wanting to call gay love a sin is the real choice here.

And frankly, as the next generation increases our voice, these worries about same-gender love will seem as quaint as the old worries about interracial love.

Elaine,

It is my belief that if you gave 20 8th graders a NAS,NIV or other good translation of the biblical texts' related to same sex sexual activity, they would be able to render a majority opinion on the unbiblical nature of such activity.

Only a complete deconstruction of language and meaning allows one to come away with another honest understanding.

The scriptures are in my understanding the final authority for faith and practice. They judge the thoughts and intents of my heart, others and yours. Those of us who have at one time or another been on a church board asked to review any behavioral activity must make decisions at times or they have abdicated their role in the church. Those decisions, when unfortunately necessary, are suppose to come from scripture.
-------------
Alex,

The context of showing the Oregon petition in relation to global warming was to show that "simple numbers" of people do not create certainty. Most of the members of the IPCC panel were not scientist themselves. A recent US senate panel stated the following: “U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...

I gave you John Christy’s view also. The lead author of the final IPCC report who says it is impossible for present computer models and understanding to accurately forecast the degree or effects of any future warming. The truth be known there is no possible acceptable alternate view available to hyper-environmentalist. Any disagreement is always considered pseudoscience.

As to this subject, the same thing takes place. Pro-Activist in both groups claim to control the ability to label anything opposing their views as pseudoscience. It seems a bit Orwellian.

I honestly don’t have a fixation in my life on either subject but have felt a personal need to respond to those who do.

I have stated all I care to at the present time on the subject.

Regards

PS. Tom, It was due to the unfortunate grouping of homosexuality with MLK day by Fulton in the last paragraph of the opening remarks.

What has love got to do with it? The issues above revolve around conjugal rights or privileges of same sex persons. How did that get into a thread on Colleges Apology for the Martin Luther Asassination? We just went through an extended torrid debate on homosexuality without resolution.
Frankly we will never get past "Don't ask, Don't Tell". I think the answer to that topic lies somewhere in the parable of the Tares and the Wheat.

Until Jesus Christ declares: "He that is Righteous (Declared Righteous in Judgment) let Him be Righteous still" man will be sinnful. Where man is in space or time has nothing to do with it. Tom

I'm late in joining this conversation. I apologize to Alex for continuing off-topic, but I want to reply to Pat's statement, "It is my belief that many African-Americans would be offended by being associated with "rights" and the concept of Homosexuality." You might note that the professor who included homosexuality, Aubyn Fulton, is himself an African American. The NAD family ministries director, also African American, has made education about homosexuality one of his department's goals. And I would add that in my experience with talking to many black people when I have had exhibits at a number of large church conferences, quite a few of them also see the similarity between the struggle of African Americans and homosexuals to be treated as equals.

Re: another statement of yours: "It is my belief that if you gave 20 8th graders a NAS,NIV or other good translation of the biblical texts' related to same sex sexual activity, they would be able to render a majority opinion on the unbiblical nature of such activity" - I don't have an NAS version, but the NIV gives a very modern cultural interpretation of Greek words when it uses "homosexual." There is no Greek equivalent of what we mean today by "homosexual," and the words so interpreted are believed by most careful NT scholars to refer to a certain kind of same-sex behavior - most likely prostitutes and men who used them. While 8th graders might not have the background to understand these texts in cultural context, if they were taught to read with discrimination they might well come to other conclusions than you expect.

Except ye become as a little child ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

While there are some things that require more education to better understand, the Bible was not written for the pupose or necessity that the "historical critical method" would be necessary in order to come to proper understanding.

I suggest it is difficult to "culturally" do away with the scriptural norm of Lev.18:22 and 20:13.
Regards

PS. I know people of color who are offended...to each his own.

Tom

I am far more inclined to accept your gentle (thanks) rebuke given the way you handled the scorn and character assassination hurled your way when you failed the litmus test over on the homosexuality thread. I can tell it really hurt you. Now, being the gentle man of grace that you are, I’d wager I can, with significant accuracy, describe what went on in your mind as this evolved.

I imagine you, even before the initial shock and surprise had begun to wane, started to identify harmful feelings and impulses within yourself towards those who wronged you. Immediately you also realized that those feelings were totally foreign to your ethic of Christian love and acceptance and that the least hint of harboring those feelings could -- and would -- do real harm to YOU. Knowing this, and the dynamics of forgiveness, you immediately set yourself toward forgiving those who offended you; to holding nothing against them; AND to desiring reconciliation in Christ. You did this all on your own -- without need for getting an apology, or even seeing any hint of remorse on the part of the offenders. You simply CHOSE to live in the attitude of constant grace with which God regards us. For you, forgiveness came alive -- or was made real -- because you chose that path. And it’s a choice you had already made a thousand and one times already. No strings, no conditions, no regrets. You just did it. You did it not to get complimented or praised, you did it because you understand that to chose God’s forgiving attitude towards you means you get to live that way too.

But it’s more than that I think. You also grasped that in living with that constant attitude of gracious forgiveness you are living with God; you partake of the divine; you tread on holy ground as-it-were. And in living like that, the Kingdom of God comes a little closer. It’s transformative, it’s oh so real, and it’s deeply personal.

So, in the context of this discussion, I simply can not see how proxies, way down the road, can possibly play these sacred roles. I could apologize to you for “their” treatment of you -- but wouldn’t that be incredibly shallow and disconnected? To me, it would almost seem to demean the very sacredness of the act and attitude OF forgiveness. Strips it of it’s incredibly personal character. One cannot have the attitude of forgiveness for another it seems to me. Neither can one accept forgiveness on behalf of another; it makes the whole dynamic less sacred somehow…

On the other hand...

At dinner last night (celebrating my 51st birthday a couple days early…) I brought the subject up and asked my eldest daughter what she thought. And she, wise girl that she is, said “Dad; forgiveness also means a willingness to participate in just about anything that helps in the healing process. If it matters to some, if it helps them move on, let ‘em do it. And BLESS them too while they do it Dad.”

So OK Tom; you, and my daughter, have softened my stance. shygirl too. (shygirl seems to have a similar wisdom to my own daughter…)
But I hope you see my point too...

Thanks Bob

You give me more credit than I am due. I thank Professor Tippett and Mrs. Burman for my introduction to English literature, which of course, included the King James version of the Bible. But the refrain that kept me in some control of my senses was: "The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven...." And Browning:
Then welcome each rebuff that turns turns earth's smoothness rough, Each sting that bids nor sit nor stand but go!
Be our joys three-parts pain!
Strive, and hold cheap the strain;
Learn, not account the pang, dare, never grudge the throe."

from Rabbu Ben Ezra.

Or the many times my dad quoted in full "If".

In my fullness of years the hymn. "When peace like a river attendeth my way, When sorrows like great billows roll, What ever my lot, Thou has taught me to say: It is well, It is well with my soul." Thanks again. Tom

Tom, how it helps in time of need to recall the wonderful works of literature. There is always someone with the gift who has given us a perfect choice in words. I only wish I could recall all that I once learned.

The gift of forgiveness is usually too late coming, or maybe there's less reason to use it!
Your demonstration of mercy and forgiveness is most helpful to all of us.

Regarding our friend Tom:

The final test and evidence of a saint? Humility...

Tom: "You give me more credit than I am due."

The credit is, of course, due Tom. But see this: his vision extends far, far further. And so he says... you give me more credit than I am due...
Through you Tom, I see your God.
You serve Him well my friend...

Oh, that "falsehood" and "love" were always ugly
What a boon to virtue that would be.

But often they wear a pretty face that lets us cheat
perhaps unknowingly.

(Modified from unknown author to me)

In the kind spirit of Bob, I do want to apologize for my part in the wild track this thread has taken, but I also want to make sure that this site at least doesn't contain overtly false facts on climate change, even if they are off topic.

Pat parades Sen. Inhofe's folks, actually 413, not 400. Compare that to the 50,000 members of the American Geophysical Union who approved a statement supporting the science of human-caused global warming.

For instance, the American Geophysical Union, which includes 50,000 earth, ocean and atmospheric scientists, among others, whose first mission is to value the scientific method (rational skepticism), has stated since 2003 that "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."

Compare that to the 413 that Pat calls scientists:

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

49 are retired

44 are television weathermen (we know how accurate they are)

20 are economists

70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

You can fact check that yourself here
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-war...

For example, 64. Tom Chisholm, TV weatherman/meteorologist.
http://www.wmtw.com/wmtwnewsteam/4030555/detail.html

Furthermore, I'm happy to employ any set of matrices to judge the reality of global warming, since Pat has chosen consensus, stating that "Most of the members of the IPCC panel were not scientist themselves" (sic), I'm happy to compare facts, even though I don't necessary think that numbers of believers is a reliable epistemological framework, but in science due to the peer review process, convincing a diverse body of experts is not to be sneezed at.

So again, on Pat's ground, the facts are:

According to the IPCC's own document in 2007 pdf, "These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors."

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/inhofian-reporting-peerless-...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html

What does this mean to you?

I apologize for coming late to this conversation, which seems now to have come to an end. I hope my comments, which have been the subject of some discussion here, have not detracted from the main point of the Martin Luther King Jr. Chapel at PUC this year, which was the inspirational story of PUC students’ participation in one of the most important and holy chapters in American history – the Marches from Selma to Montgomery.

My comment, in response to President Osborn’s apology for the long history of prejudice and discrimination against African-Americans at PUC, was occasioned by his observation that, at the time, most white Adventists did not realize that they were behaving in a prejudiced or hateful manner. I thought that odd, since I know that the hate and injustice was quite clear to most African-Americans. It made me wonder what groups of people I may currently be treating in a hateful and unjust manner without realizing it. I thought the apology would be most meaningful if it led not just to abstract sorrow for the past behavior or others, but a renewed commitment to changing our own current behavior.

I guess it is not surprising that, of the many groups I mentioned to illustrate the point, the one that has generated the most reaction (both indirectly on this site and in direct communications I have had since) is homosexuals. I suppose the white Adventists who mistreated African-Americans in the past thought they had good, perhaps even Biblical, justification for their actions as well. In his Chapel talk at PUC Milton Hare talked about a powerful and disturbing image, projected on the giant screen in the PUC Church Sanctuary, of an Adventist Conference official, an ordained minister, literally kicking African-American Adventists out of an all white Church and barring the door with his body. No doubt this Adventist pastor honestly believed he was acting as a Christian – perhaps he even had chapter and verse from scripture to justify his actions. But he was wrong. We know he was wrong now, many people, even white people, knew he was wrong then, and everybody should have known it.

I think it is worth asking if the hateful and unjust treatment of homosexuals (or women, or African-Americans, or Hispanics or Asians or Muslims, or …) while unrecognized, is just as wrong now as the actions toward African-Americans of that Adventist Conference official, or those PUC administrators over the years. I will not apologize if the question gives offense, (I am resigned to offending people on occasion) but I am content if those discussing the question are willing to submit themselves to the authority of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which I think is pretty clear on this point.

I appreciate your vision, Aubyn.

If I may quote a few verses from the Gospel you reference (Matt:25: 38-40). This is part of that good news that changed an empire's relationship to a minority religion.

'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

As many a commentator has pointed out, illness, prison, strangeness were scriptural sins. There are more verses in the Bible that take slavery as good than homosexuality as wrong. Add to that the fact that Jesus never spoke directly for or against either topic. Add to that the fact that humans have used literal readings of Paul to subjugate women, slaves and homosexuals, but never to defend murder or selfishness.

Reflecting back on the actual words of the Gospels and the extrapolation that Aubyn makes regarding human justice, it seems that the biggest mistake that humans make on understanding scriptural ethics -- from racism to homophobia -- is a selective literalism. One cannot employ the same hermeneutic to fight oppression and treat homosexuality as strange. In hundreds of comments on this and the previous Spectrum Blog, I have yet to see someone explain a consistent hermeneutic that deals with the equally prohibitive texts in Leviticus or Romans on slavery, social relations, and mixing that we no longer read literally. From the narratives of the OT to the parables of the NT to the contextual letters of Paul it's pretty clear that the Truth of scripture lies not in simple reading of sentences, but meditating on the meaning and drawing applications that get to the root of treating all like Christ, even what we feel strange about.

Historians from to Stephen Haynes to Mark A. Noll have drawn telling parallels between theology and attitudes toward "strangers." The Biblical arguments for calling homosexual identity sinful parallel the old Biblical arguments for calling slavery God-ordained.

http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Curse-Biblical-Justification-American/dp/019...
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalS...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DC1230F932A35752C1A...
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2099
http://www.southernhistory.net/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1035...

If that's not enough I encourage reading actual passages from texts like Ross's Slavery - Ordained of God. It's difficult to read same gender = sin arguments without seeing similarities both in reasoning and scriptural usage.

Strange that while we seem to engage in self flagellation with respect to past events over which most of us had no control those who admire MLK almost never speak about his womanizing.

If it's appropriate to self flagellate, isn't it also appropriate to point out MLK's female capers?
Posted by: Your Friend (not verified) | 25 January 2008 at 7:23
=================================================

Pure nonsense.

How is it that MLK is the only American would-be hero that is put to the (arbitrary) "morality test"?

Must we forget the slave-owning ways of the Founding Fathers?

Or the mistress-holding ways of Thomas Jefferson?

Please name one other national hero that is routinely asked to account for his/her personal faults.
If you read Phillip Yancey's article about King here:

http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1541/story5.html

You will see the pedigree of your non-argument.
They go all the was back to the segregationist South and were used primarily by the bigots who didn't want to confront their sinful ways. They in fact originated there. You should be ashamed of such pedigree.

MLK will be in heaven long before General Sherman, Bull Connor (or any of the "Southern Pride" heroes of yesterday).

It is shameful that this weak non-argument still has traction among some so-called conservatives today.

Anonymous

I don't think General Sherman is a Southern Pride hero of yesterday. At least not here in Augusta. He once was stationed in Augusta on the ground that now is part of Augusta State University. When General Sherman bypassed Augusta some claimed it was for sentamental reasons. To which, General Sherman replied: If you don't stop bragging, I send a squad down and ravish your town like you claim I did others."

If you know your Southern History, you must know that it was the husband of the woman Rosa Parks worked for that started the chain of events to "free the South of Jim Crow" It was three Southern Federal Judges on the Court of Appeals that confirmed the illegality of Jim Crow statutes.

One of my colleagues at the Medical College of Georgia was one of the students who sat in "the White's Only section of the Soda Fountation" and got a knot on his head and a night in jail for his trubles. He helped us more than double the number of Black dentists practicing in Georgia within 10 years of the first graduating class.

Yes, I had the windows of my office broken, the might of MLK murder. None the less, I have had Black over-night house guests and have supported a Black neighbor to the Georgia Legislature.

The most bigoted Georgian I ever met was born and raised within 15 miles of Andrews University.

A Black dentist, a graduate of LLU is head elder of the Augusta Seventh-day Adventist church, retired from the faculty of the Medical College of Georgia.

The South was and is a mosaic just like the rest of the country. Every county has had a Bull Connor at one time or another.

As a young church school farm boy in Berrien Springs, Michigan it was a town ordinance that no Black person could be on the streets of Berrien Springs after sunset. They had to be back in Berrien Center or face arrest.

I hoed corn on the E.M.C. farm with a Black man who completed Medicine and was appointed to the Board of Education by Governor Reagan. We hoed corn at 16 to acquire an education that would take us the "hell" out of Berrien Springs. Tom

Oops! That should be General Lee. Thank you Tom.

Maybe no one will read my comment because I just found out about this article, and it's August 2008. I am Milton Hare, one of the four who traveled to Selma in 1965. I spoke at PUC about the experience. I was just as surprised as anyone could be that the PUC Faculty Council decided it would be appropriate for PUC to apologize for mistreatment of African-Americans. African-Americans were mistreated at PUC in the past by whites and others and are still certainly subject to some types of exclusion and prejudice at PUC and in other settings throughout the Seventh-day Adventist church. The difference now is that PUC has admitted it, which opens the door wider to proactive resolution of the underlying problems. Everyone acts out prejudice on some level. African-Americans themselves have acted prejudicially. I witnessed and participated in black prejudice toward other blacks while I was a student at PUC. Some blacks were deemed not representative of the race, and excluded from privileges that "higher-class" blacks enjoyed. Prejudice is powerful, fueled by our desire to have a bigger piece of the pie. For this reason you and I, unless we are saved from it by Grace, readily agree to participate in any formula that pays off for us personally at whatever cost is necessary to those who can be excluded. I have read the discussion evoked by the Spectrum article. It would be nice to keep the discussion on prejudice against African-Americans for awhile. What should our educational institutions do to assure that African-Americans can fully participate in college life at PUC? Should we recruit African-American students? recruit African-American staff? create a forum between African-American and non-African-American students to explore whether prejudice is still being acted out? make closer ties with traditionally black congregations? As President Osborne suggests, many PUC officials may not have realized they were practicing racism. If that is true, could it still be true? Should PUC examine itself? And how does it do that? How does a person or a college root out the evil within itself when evil by its very design is a liar, and, a thief, robbing individual and community of candor, reality, relationship, veracity? I can think of so many specific individuals - both black and white - who were deeply harmed by racism at PUC when I was a student there in the early sixties. I cannot really believe that it was inevident to many whites that blacks were sequestered in menial jobs and not permitted to room with whites or to date whites. It wasn't just the faculty and administration. Although many students did not have a racist bone in their body, many other students would not sit with blacks or talk with them, and showed disdain when blacks spoke up in class. All these actions were obvious, and, in the sixties when the fight against segregation was front-page news, we Adventists certainly knew what we were doing. Racism is conscious and it depends on denial for its survival. It is just another sin, and, we deny that we are doing it in order to guarantee our bigger piece of pie. With the exception of those who are spiritual and nonmaterialistic, we all practice it. We have all been harmed and socially limited by its consequences. There is a tremendous social tension arising from racism that takes energy and resources from everyone involved. Racism creates a dangerous, violent environment and it is easy to understand why if you think about it. Because you are white and I am black, statistically you are richer, healthier, safer and better-educated. Now, Milton Hare is a white man, and I am saying this. Racism is simply selfishness, and that creates a dangerous world. Heaven will have no part of selfish people, and many whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and others will lose out on heaven because they are selfish. Ultimately PUC needs to examine itself in the microcosm of its apology to understand as much about this issue of selfishness as possible, because it does stand in PUC's way as PUC attempts to stay true to its mission, which is to educate Christians and build the kind of character that is evangelical, loving, selfless, accepting, and generally, Godlike. I think there are things that can appropriately be done on behalf of the African-American community at PUC. First, PUC could convene a forum where black students can talk about how they are treated, not in a complaining way, but in a way that reveals the extent to which racism is still part of the instutional structure of an Adventist college like PUC. PUC could also create opportunities for students to really talk, on an ongoing basis, about uncomfortable social issues. I notice that there is a lot of experimentation with social morality at PUC but not much talk about it. PUC could provide scholarship assistance to black families, especially those living nearby, and especially to those who desire a Christian education but cannot afford it, and believe me, the black Adventist community has many families who are well-off and could afford to send their children to PUC but do not. PUC could also recruit black faculty. My understanding is that it currently hires one African-American faculty member. One way PUC could approach both the problem of black student recruitment and black faculty recruitment is to create a formal alliance with Oakwood College. It would greatly expand the educational prospects of both PUC and Oakwood Colleges if students were allowed to take up to two semesters as a visiting student with all credits transferrable, with each school providing the other a visiting professor who would serve as an advisor and counselor to his or her college's visiting students. All of these ideas are reasonable. The most likely problem in implementing them would be the reaction of donors, of the alumnae, of parents and perhaps some students, who are uncomfortable with the idea of a Pacific Union College that has a noticeably-larger population of African-American students at the school. As a practical matter they have a point. Or do they? That is the moral crux of the matter. If there are uncertainties associated with a moral decision do we still make the decision? And do we make the right decision? PUC has taken a step forward. Don't think for a second that PUC's apology was received with open arms by all of PUC's supporters. Now the question is, do we take another step? How far and how fast can we go as we move toward a truly moral position? With God's help we can, and he will smooth out all the difficulties. But it must include a very broad perception of the issue before us. The issue in its most accessible form is selfishness. If PUC will renew its quest to provide students with a truly spiritual education, address the practical problem of creating Godlike character and selfless students who understand that the material things of life just don't have much value, even in this lifetime, a new and peculiar college will arise, powerful, resilient, perhaps with a different constituency, not interested in anything selfish but more preoccupied with evangelism, in helping students, regardless of their professional goals, define a working morality that will serve them well in these last days. I know that the apology will not be the last action the college takes with reference to racism. I have faith that black and white students will examine themselves and talk openly about these issues, and that the college will exercise its authority to strengthen its relationship with African-American students and better serve their needs at PUC, needs for affirmation, for inclusion, for a certain favor that tells a man or a woman that their college will stand behind them no matter what and do everything within their power to assure their right to a great college education.