Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Hey, Supermajority Democrats! | Changes for Chang's »

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

UPDATE: Soul Force at SPU

Posted by on April 11 at 13:25 PM

[Originally posted at 11 a.m.]

SPUSoulForce.JPG

I’m at Seattle Pacific University this morning, listening in as the gay rights group Soul Force lectures the students of this Christian university on the many ways in which accepting gay people is not incompatible with their faith. Above is one of the Soul Force “Equality riders.” Her group has been traveling the country doing these types of lectures at Christian universities, and sometimes getting arrested.

SPU has taken a different approach, welcoming the Soul Force people onto their campus as a way of showing that this university is “grace-filled.” Does that mean that SPU thinks being gay is compatible with Christianity? No, it does not.

The forum I’m sitting in will involve a presentation by Soul Force, a counter-presentation by an SPU professor, and then a question and answer period. I’m pretty skeptical about all of this. I admire the effort the Soul Force people put into these events, but personally, I don’t understand why a gay person would waste his or her time trying to argue against Biblical literalism.

Biblical literalism is not rational, therefore it doesn’t respond to rational argument. End of story.

In addition, the rubric of the “Equality Ride” is of course intended to echo the anti-segregation Freedom Rides of the 1960s, but there’s a big problem in this comparison: Gay people who willingly attend anti-gay Christian universities today are not in the same situation as blacks in the South in the 1960s. The difference is very obvious: If gays and lesbians don’t like the inequality they experience at Christian universities, all they have to do is leave them.

Here’s a picture of an SPU student who asked one of the questions at this event:

IMG_2174.JPG

UPDATE: After the discussion, I talked with a young woman who had been sitting next to me taking notes during the presentations. Her name is Tiffany Gathers. She’s a 21-year-old sociology student (with a minor in educational ministry) and she wasn’t at all persuaded by Soul Force.

“I didn’t exactly feel like the arguments held a lot of ground,” she said. Gathers believes the Bible is the literal word of God. Being gay, she told me, “is something that Satan places on you.” But, she added, it’s also a choice that a person can refuse.

She told me she’s “not a gay-bashing person,” and that she might support gay marriage if it was state-sanctioned and religious groups weren’t forced to marry gays in religious ceremonies. I asked her if she could point me toward a gay person at SPU. “No one really knows who the gay people are here,” she replied.

It wasn’t hard for me to spot the gay men at SPU. I walked up to one and asked if I could speak with him. Then I asked if he was gay. He replied: “Yes, but not here.” He wouldn’t let me take his picture, but he did allow me to take a picture of his shoes.

IMG_2182.jpg

The young man is 19 years old. “I don’t really like this university at all,” he told me. “But I attend because I love Seattle, and I love the people I’ve met here.”

He’s from California, from a conservative Christian family that sent him to therapy when he came out. His mother, he told me, wouldn’t pay for his college education unless he was attending a Christian university. He’s not comfortable on the SPU campus, he told me, and can’t wait to get out.

“Next year is my last year, thank God,” he said.

I also ran into a gay man who dropped out of SPU because he felt uncomfortable on campus, but came back for the forum. His name is Jimmy McKay:

IMG_2187.jpg

McKay is 21, and now attends Seattle University, a religious university where he says he feels comfortable being out. He left SPU, he said, because “I didn’t see why I should pay so much money to an institution that didn’t support a big part of me.”

Does he think the event today was worthwhile?

“It might not change anyone’s mind,” he told me. “But it will help them to put a face to people who are gay instead of holding on to their stereotypes.”


CommentsRSS icon

Soulforce is more punk rock than Johnny Rotten and Chuck D fucking the Thermals in the CBGB bathroom.

Eli, most students at SPU do not actually favor "biblical literalism." It's a common mistake (among secular liberals anyway) to believe that most conservative Christians do. SPU's theology is grounded in a Free Methodist tradition and practice that actually prizes rational discourse. I quite agree that their position on homosexuality is repugnant, but they do have reasons for their belief. And even if those reasons to have an ultimate grounding in a religious text, that's far, far different from "literalism."

Sorry Eric. If your reasons for believing something are based completely on the Bible, that's Biblical literalism.

And Biblical literalism is exactly what the SPU professor used in arguing against the Soul Force positions.

"Biblical literalism is not rational, therefore it doesn’t respond to rational argument. End of story."

Amen Eli.

for the record, i've boinked a half-dozen or so SPU students over the years, some of them in their dorm rooms. :)

Not really, Eli. The phrase "biblical literalism" refers to people who believe that the world was literally created in 7 days; that the world's wildlife was literally rescued in a big boat, etc. Plenty of people, across a very wide political, theological, and cultural spectrum draw a portion of their grounding from "revealed truth" (as revealed, that is, in a sacred text). But they are not necessarily "literalists" -- that's a much further and nuttier step.

In truth, most of the SPU community believes that the bible is a melange of poetry, history, oral tradition, ethical teaching, and so on. It's difficult to know what it would mean to take poetry, for instance, as "literal." So they don't. But they do believe that some the ethical guidelines included in the bible are to be treated seriously. (Interestingly, most actually do NOT believe that ALL the ethical quidelines in the bible are correct, and they employ a variety of rational and theological tests to make sense of them.)

I'm not defending them -- I think their views are abhorrent -- but slapping them with "literalism" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of their position.

In the 80s, I attended SPU for a while. I was a (straight) evanglical Christian, though politically liberal. I remember reading some things at the time probably similar to the things Soul Fource is saying and I found them very helpful.

I'd only heard that being gay is one of the big sins on the road to hell, but it turns out the popular passages in the bible can reasonably be interpreted and contextuallized very differently from that. It was a small relief to allow sexual orientation to become a non-issue in my worldview, and it was one more crack in the wall that eventually brought down my faith entirely.

No doubt, 20 years on, there are more than a few at SPU in the same situation I was. Soul Force won't change the school, but I think they can do some good.

They literally know that the bible's anti-gay passages should literally apply today -- to the gays -- but that the bible's anti-lobster passages, anti-poly/cotton blend passages, anti-allowing-adulterers-to-live passages, and pro-murdering-your-disobedient-child passages are all poetry and guidelines and should not apply to, say, them.

Because lobster is delicious and their parents are divorced and they're wearing cotton/poly blends and they've disobeyed their parents and don't think they should die. But the gays? It's no skin of their asses if we're oppressed because of some bullshit in their bible.

Eric: If a person thinks the Bible offers a "revealed truth," as you say, then that person believes that the Bible represents the literal word of God. Whether or not this person is selective in his or her Biblical literalism isn't really germane to my point. My point is that you can't argue rationally against someone who defends a position by resorting to Biblical literalism.

Christian homophobia (and yes, even Christian homophobia of the SPU variety) can't be defended without resorting to Biblical literalism.

When I was there, there was a tension between the adminstration and marketing of the school, which positioned itself as fundamentalist literalists, and the faculty, which took positions such as Eric describes. I don't know if it's the same now.

Since I am one of the few commentators on Slog who when to college at one of these "Christian schools of higher whatever" (Whitworth College, Spokane) Let me just say that there is nothing in the bible that says you can pick and choose what to follow or not follow.

This is the major failure of Christianity as a religous belief and why I ended up being a hard-core athiest. All of the arguments to use the bible to support or attack anyone for anything is full of holes it the logic behind it.

Right, Dan... but aren't you making my point? A huge chunk of the ethical precepts in the bible have been susceptible to progressive theology and rationalism. So even in mainline protestant churches stoning is out of the question; women are treated much better than before; and hats are optional. (Not cotton/poly though-- that's blasphemy.) I think there's every reason to believe that the portion of the church open to reason (i.e. the non-literalists, like at SPU), will eventually come around and start treating gays like people. Anyway, they can at least talk about it.

Don't you think that's at least part of the reason why they're having this conversation with Soul Force? I mean, they could have just gone the route of those uber-rationalist catholics at a place like Notre Dame and just refused them access.

My boyfriend attends SPU. He makes no attempt to hide who he is from his classmates and teachers and they are all very supportive. So, I guess I just want to say that the position of SPU Administration does not necessarily reflect the position of its students and teachers.

that is one sexy dyke (in the plaid jacket)

eli, you're right that no one changes these minds with rational debate. I think with young people though, there is benefit just from the exchange--"to plant the seed," if you will.

fundamentalists have a harder time promoting hate when confronted with likeable homos. Even if the position doesn't change, sometimes biblebeaters can at least learn to keep their mouth shut on the issue (hi mom and dad!)

on a side note, I think it would be fun to play strip bible trivia with the greasy student at the bottom of the post. yes his bible is all tabbed or whatever, but I'm still conconvinced I could cream the motherfucker.

Eli,
Two quick points.

First, you say: "If a person thinks the Bible offers a "revealed truth," as you say, then that person believes that the Bible represents the literal word of God." If you delete the word "literal" from that sentence then I agree with you.

Second, you say: "you can't argue rationally against someone who defends a position by resorting to Biblical literalism." But isn't that obviously false? Don't we have rational arguments all the time with people who have different groundings for their beliefs, be they orthodox jews, fundie xians, or gaia worshippers? As long as the participants subscribe to some shared beliefs -- logic, fairness, kindness, whatever -- then there's opportunity to point out inconsistencies or flaws in your opponents view.

Bible literalists believe that everything in the bible is literal. i.e. the creation story is not a metaphor.

Bible inerrants believe the bible is without error.

All literalists are inerrants, but not all inerrants are literalists. For example an inerrantist might appreciate the story of the flood for what it says about humanity and god, without actually needing to believe that a flood really happened. A literalist would believe the flood happened exactly how it was described (impossible I know).

Most evangelicals are both.

Thanks, Giffy! That's the distinction I was clumsily pointing toward. (I seriously doubt, however, that "most" evangelicals are literalists.)

To clarify the inerrancy debates deals with wether the bible is the complete and true word of god. Inerrants hold that it is, without any mistakes. Other content that translation, etc have introduced mistakes and error.

The literalness debate comes down to what those words mean.

Yes, the dyke in plaid is very hot. Perhaps that NYT study in the Slog yesterday is accurate, and it's just a matter of time before her lack of specific sexual orientation expresses itself? I'll try and be there for her when that happens.

Thanks Eric,

I have to disagree with you though that it is possible to debate a full on literalist. We simply don't share the same assumptions. They hold that the bible is the grounding for truth. Observation, science, reason all are a distant second. I may say there was no earthwide flood and point to all sorts of evidence but in the end they will point to the bible.

you can always find something to debate. for instance, who cares if there was a literal flood or not? why not debate whether the US is a theocracy or not? you don't have to convince a literalist the bible isn't true, you just have to convince them to play nice with others.

Eli, this is fascinating, please tell me you will give a more in depth report on what you observed, either in the print addition or here on SLOG. I am dying to know how the Q&A went. I just keep staring at that pic of the students and those girls in the background appear to be caught at that crucial moment when their narrow world view begins to explode. If these Soul Force folks "plant a seed' as @14 said in just a couple of these kids, it will be worth it. That kid is clutching his bible like a safety blanket.

dan @ 8 (as if there was any other dan)

as a former SPU student, i can say that your arguements have certain problems. without going into too much detail, most seattle christians will simply say that jesus released people from the obligations of the old law, but reiterated that some laws still apply. For instance, 1 Cor 1:9 does list homosexuals as sinners (and not lobster eating fabric mixers).

that means in a discussion with one, they will simply ignore your rationale. i'm just saying in case you did not know this -- you probably did. as someone who was deep into the christianity, i'm offering my insight on what constituted a good argument and what was then unconvincing to me.

i'd also agree with the literalist stuff. the average spu student is probably not a literalist.

anyway, there are plenty of other contradictions they couldn't as easily dismiss. such as, why do laws allow for divorce but not gay marriage? why is it legal to swear (on a bible or otherwise) in court? why is premarital sex legal? etc... clearly not all our laws are based on the bible.

Commenter #6, I thought God created everything in 6 days and had a brewski on the 7th day. And #23, Jesus DID NOT write ONE itssy pitsy word in the Bible, nor did he mention those nasty wicked homos; so you need to re-write your comment making it clear that Paul wrote that letter to the folks in Corinth and we all know that Paul was a murderer, a single man, and was busy hunting people and having them killed. Yeah, I'd believe what a murderer says about behavior too. (my red pencil is working overtime here kids).

but i thought seattle u wagged it's bejeweled finger in dan's big gay face a few months ago? aren't they big bad christians too? someone should call them and tell them they've got a "gay" in their midst. dan wouldn't paint a gay-friendly catholic university with the same brush he uses on pat robertson, would he?

sargon's argument is valid to a point. jesus didn't say anything, and only the reference in cor is clearly not referring to the old testament (other new testament refs refer to the old). only, christians would dismiss paul's murdering as pre-conversion... so not much to gain there.

Post a Comment





Please click Post only once.