Biola Queer Underground members didn't seem satisfied with the response. On their website, they noted: "Biola claims to want a dialogue...Without inviting Christians speakers who have a different view of homosexuality, fruitful dialogue will not happen. In the past, your monologues on homosexuality have not been good or fair to us."
See Story Below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/biola-university-queer-underground-gay-group_n_1542741.html
Brief Response
This is a perfect example of the kind of dialogue the gay movement desires. If that dialogue opposes sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage between a husband and a wife, then by their definition, it isn’t fruitful dialogue. In other words, the only fruitful dialogue they seem interested in is the kind of dialogue that endorses and agrees with their position. One has to ask what that kind of dialogue looks like. According to Biola Queer Underground members, only dialogue that recognizes gay men and women as Christians can be fruitful dialogue. But that begs the question of what exactly is meant by fruitful dialogue to begin with. By fruitful, I suspect they mean the progressive acceptance of gay members into the Christian community. If that is not their aim, then one has to wonder what is. Why is it that these BQU members think that they are the only ones who can determine what and when fruitful dialogue occurs. Who gets to say that fruitful dialogue must include open views on same sex behavior? Is it possible that the continued exclusion of practicing homosexuals from the Christian community is fruitful dialogue? Why can’t it be fruitful to continue to uphold the teachings of those Scriptures that denounce the practice of same sex behavior? Who says that kind of dialogue is not fruitful? These are the kind of stories to lead me to suspect that this ruse about the Church not showing the gay community love is more imaginative than it is real. That is not to say that isolated cases exist. I am sure they do. But the general characterizations that have been made recently about the issue is nonsense and baseless. Moreover, it is interesting to me that those who make the claims never stop to provide ample evidence for their indictments. The Biola Queer Underground is indicative of what the gay movement as a whole wants from the Christian community: wholehearted, unequivocal endorsement and acceptance with no strings attached. Anything less than that is unloving, bigoted, and hateful according to the gay community. And if that is what they mean by love, then I suppose that by their definition, the Christian community will never be able to love them the way they demand to be loved. But we can and should and shall love them the way God demands we should.
See Story Below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/biola-university-queer-underground-gay-group_n_1542741.html
Brief Response
This is a perfect example of the kind of dialogue the gay movement desires. If that dialogue opposes sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage between a husband and a wife, then by their definition, it isn’t fruitful dialogue. In other words, the only fruitful dialogue they seem interested in is the kind of dialogue that endorses and agrees with their position. One has to ask what that kind of dialogue looks like. According to Biola Queer Underground members, only dialogue that recognizes gay men and women as Christians can be fruitful dialogue. But that begs the question of what exactly is meant by fruitful dialogue to begin with. By fruitful, I suspect they mean the progressive acceptance of gay members into the Christian community. If that is not their aim, then one has to wonder what is. Why is it that these BQU members think that they are the only ones who can determine what and when fruitful dialogue occurs. Who gets to say that fruitful dialogue must include open views on same sex behavior? Is it possible that the continued exclusion of practicing homosexuals from the Christian community is fruitful dialogue? Why can’t it be fruitful to continue to uphold the teachings of those Scriptures that denounce the practice of same sex behavior? Who says that kind of dialogue is not fruitful? These are the kind of stories to lead me to suspect that this ruse about the Church not showing the gay community love is more imaginative than it is real. That is not to say that isolated cases exist. I am sure they do. But the general characterizations that have been made recently about the issue is nonsense and baseless. Moreover, it is interesting to me that those who make the claims never stop to provide ample evidence for their indictments. The Biola Queer Underground is indicative of what the gay movement as a whole wants from the Christian community: wholehearted, unequivocal endorsement and acceptance with no strings attached. Anything less than that is unloving, bigoted, and hateful according to the gay community. And if that is what they mean by love, then I suppose that by their definition, the Christian community will never be able to love them the way they demand to be loved. But we can and should and shall love them the way God demands we should.
No comments:
Post a Comment