Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on UPDATE: Soul Force at SPU

1

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

Posted by David Schmader | April 11, 2007 11:35 AM
2

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."

Posted by Eric | April 11, 2007 11:35 AM
3

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.

Posted by Eli Sanders | April 11, 2007 11:39 AM
4

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

Amen Eli.

Posted by SeMe | April 11, 2007 11:41 AM
5

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

Posted by SPU = spew | April 11, 2007 11:46 AM
6

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.

Posted by Eric | April 11, 2007 11:49 AM
7

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.

Posted by pox | April 11, 2007 11:54 AM
8

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.

Posted by Dan Savage | April 11, 2007 11:56 AM
9

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.

Posted by Eli Sanders | April 11, 2007 11:58 AM
10

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.

Posted by pox | April 11, 2007 12:01 PM
11

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.

Posted by Andrew | April 11, 2007 12:03 PM
12

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.

Posted by Eric | April 11, 2007 12:06 PM
13

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.

Posted by flawedreality | April 11, 2007 12:07 PM
14

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.

Posted by craigbrownson | April 11, 2007 12:12 PM
15

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.

Posted by Eric | April 11, 2007 12:14 PM
16

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.

Posted by Giffy | April 11, 2007 12:16 PM
17

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

Posted by Eric | April 11, 2007 12:19 PM
18

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.

Posted by Giffy | April 11, 2007 12:20 PM
19

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.

Posted by Matthew | April 11, 2007 12:23 PM
20

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.

Posted by Giffy | April 11, 2007 12:23 PM
21

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.

Posted by infrequent | April 11, 2007 12:28 PM
22

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.

Posted by longball | April 11, 2007 12:45 PM
23

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.

Posted by infrequent | April 11, 2007 12:54 PM
24

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).

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | April 11, 2007 1:22 PM
25

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?

Posted by i'm a confused... | April 11, 2007 1:44 PM
26

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.

Posted by infrequent | April 11, 2007 1:53 PM
27

Thanks for the word, Giffy! I work with a bunch of literalists and inerrants, but I never knew how to term the distinction. Lovely people for the most part, and sweet as anything, but their religious beliefs just floor me.

And infrequent's right - they do argue that way. I can't quite see how it all works, but they see the old testament as being prior to the rules they have to work under.

Posted by wench | April 11, 2007 2:08 PM
28

We had a group like this visit my middle school way back in the stone age, at that time and place where homophobia was the unquestioned norm. These brave gay people told their stories, debated the audience, and did their best to ignore the taunts.

I don't think anyone was transformed into a homophile by the event, but for many of us youngsters, homosexuals changed from an abstract idea into real human beings, and our homophobia softened up a bit as a result.

Posted by Sean | April 11, 2007 2:30 PM
29

All this arguing over semantics ('literal' vs "literal"), but no one thinks to point out that Tiffany, unbeknownst to herself, supports gay marriage? Religious institutions cannot be forced to perform, honor or recognize gay marriages (should such things come to exist in our time). Folks who don't believe in the separation of church and state really should think about this - that separation is all the is keeping the churches of Massachusets from being legally obligated to sanction what they consider sin.

Posted by switzerblog | April 11, 2007 2:42 PM
30

I went to a private Lutheran liberal arts college in MN and was thankful that it was pretty accepting of GLBT. i'm not sure if i ever knew of the "official" college stance, but students and professors seemed to be completely at ease being "out." it is sad other religious institutions aren't the same.

NOTE: I'm not Lutheran or gay, if that matters to anyone reading. :)

ddv

Posted by ddv | April 11, 2007 2:46 PM
31

Religous groups can't be forced to perform ANY marriages, gay or straight. Many, many straight couples have been turned away from churches whose pastor or priest felt they were insufficiently committed to the congregation, and just wanted the sexy building and ritual.

If anti-gay people are open to this, gay marriage is not only inevitable but coming sooner than I thought. After all, a great deal of the arguement against is orchestrated by people who claim that gays want to get married IN THEIR CHURCHES, which is not true.

It's not about churches or beliefs, it's about rights.

Posted by Fnarf | April 11, 2007 3:34 PM
32

Fnarf: eggzackly. Frankly, when arguing marriage equality with a fundy, which I avoid doing with great fervor, the 'your church can never, ever be forced to marry gays or recognize gay marriage' argument is the only one I bother using. Biblical belief, or the pseudo-biblically-based belief format many American Christians subscribe to, is by default immune to reason, critique or disagreement, so other arguments are just a waste of time.

So pointing out that it really can't come to their door if they don't want it to doesn't win every argument, but it's won a couple for me.

Posted by switzerblog | April 11, 2007 3:39 PM
33

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

This is, of course, true. However, people exposed to or even espousing biblical literalism *can* be rational, even though the arguments for acceptance and equality aren't always based on rationalism; most of them, in fact, are very emotionally charged. Think of the most successful works (art works, literature, etc) and actions that have swayed people to recognize the equal humanity of others. They may have a rational basis, but their argument and appeal are most often found in the realms of pathos.

Posted by johnnie | April 11, 2007 3:40 PM
34

there should be a "talking points" outline to the gay-marriage discussion with fundies...

why shouldn't gay-marriage be legal?

because it's wrong.

why is it wrong?

blah blah blah because the bible says so.

do all the laws in america mirror what the bible says is wrong.

no.

should they?

...no.

or, at least at this point the discussion can turn to the true rationale. for instance, they may think a family is better with a mother and father, etc... and that is your grounds for discussion. if they say god says a family, just reply, gods says a "christian family", what about non-christian families? steer the debate to the rational.

Posted by infrequent | April 11, 2007 4:17 PM
35

Christians are such idiots to believe their bible. It's all lies and nonsense.
The Torah is the word of G-d clearly states that Israel belongs to Jews. Why Christians will believe their bible and not the Torah is one of the world's mysteries.

Posted by Shoshana | April 11, 2007 4:35 PM
36

I've been trying to figure out if Shoshana is seriously suggesting that the Jewish book of bronze-age myths is more reliable than the Christian book of bronze-age myths, and that believing in one is more idiotic than believing in the other, or if s/he is just pointing out the inconsistency of believing one and not the other.

Posted by pox | April 11, 2007 5:28 PM
37

The Torah clearly states that the Jews are a people set apart and Israel belongs to the Jews. Centuries of study have proven the Torah is true.

The Christian bible is nothing but lies. In Seattle they allow a Christmas tree in the airport, the symbol of Christian lies. But when Jews want a Menorah, the symbol of a true story in the Torah, antisemitic Seattle will not allow it.

So yes the Torah is true and The Christian bible is all lies.

Posted by Shoshana | April 11, 2007 6:00 PM
38

But their real crime is denying NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE

Posted by Giffy | April 11, 2007 6:06 PM
39

@36 Shoshana is a big ole troll. She hasn't been around for a while but she used to haunt the Slog quite a bit. I think she also uses the name "Josh" and maybe "Racism Watch" too.

Posted by Tim | April 11, 2007 7:33 PM
40

Haven's hot!
*ahem* excuse me ...

Posted by SeattleExile | April 11, 2007 9:50 PM
41

I'm on staff at Seattle Pacific University.

Several comments:

1. SPU is radically diverse ideologically. Eli laments the fact that the language of being 'grace-filled' does not mean that SPU 'thinks being gay is compatible with Christianity.' The fact of the matter is that there is no one thing that SPU 'thinks.' The point of being 'grace-filled' is that folks who whole-heartedly disagree about issues can actually talk about them here. As best I can tell, SPU represents a much broader ideological spectrum than, say, the editorial board of The Stranger. (And believe me: there certainly are members of the SPU community who would by and large agree with the editorial board of The Stranger.) For us, dialogue (which depends on differences of opinion) means that we can be in community with each other, despite disagreement. For others, like Eli, dialogue means somebody still disagrees with him, and that's bad.

2. Eli is being intentionally misleading by posting the picture of the guy with the Bible. His was the only question posed during the Q&A that resorted to Biblical literalism or took a seriously adversarial tack; most (faculty and staff at least) were rolling their eyes.

3. I am not a fundamentalist. I am an academic, however. As such, I note how different cultures resort to overarching narratives to give them a sense of their purpose. Christians use the Bible to supply their overarching narratives, often to their public embarrassment and folly. What do secular liberals use? The answer is different in different contexts. It's not 'science,' since science tells us the way things go, not the way they're SUPPOSED to go, and that's very different. There is always SOME source, it seems to me. And ultimately, these grounding assumptions—whatever they are—take on an 'irrational' quality, similar to the 'irrational' quality ascribed to faith in the Bible. This discussion is complicated, of course. My point is that the argument cuts both ways, and secular Seattlites need to come to terms with it. 'These silly Christians trust the Bible to guide them!' We say. And they respond, 'These silly Secularists trust the capricious drift of contemporary culture to guide them!' Let's be a little more savvy and self-aware before we just ridicule the Christians.

Posted by Phil | April 12, 2007 1:27 PM
42

Ummm... I'm not quite sure what to say. Jimmy's my husband.

Posted by shocked | April 12, 2007 2:53 PM
43

I am a current SPU student, and from what I witnessed, the goings-on of yesterday were very positive. I spoke quite a bit with a few of the Equality Riders and they all expressed that they felt our campus, in general terms, was very open to listening to them. I witnessed many conversations, some of which were disagreements, but all were polite and respectful. I think that much honest conversation took place, and, as many have already mentioned, homosexuality now has a face (faces) for many students who previously had not encountered anyone from the GLBTQ community. I've already heard serious talk today about the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance at SPU, which I think would be a wonderful step towards breaking down the sterotypes, misperceptions, and assumptions that so many Christians hold/make towards homosexuals. I think that change will be slow, but I think some will happen. Thus, I think that Equality Ride was extremely productive. I'm very glad that these individuals had the courage and conviction to come share their stories in potentially very threatening environments.

Also, I want to reiterate Phil's (41) statement that there is a huge amount of diversity of beliefs and opinions among SPU's students, staff, and faculty. While the administration of SPU may project an official position for the University, it is truly impossible to state a belief that one could claim is SPU's as a community.

Finally, in whatever capacity I'm able to do this (I obviously don't speak for the entirety of the student body), I'd like to apologize to anyone who has experienced any sort of pain or suffering, emotional, physical, or otherwise, due to the opinions, positions, or actions of the SPU community. We obviously have problems, and we obviously are not especially sensitive, supportive, or understanding of GLBTQ individuals (afterall, we're mostly populated by kids who have been raised in very traditional, upper middle-class Christian families). As the Equality Riders said, no matter how "grace-filled" or hospitable we are, at the end of the day they would not feel comfortable attending this school. That blatantly points out a problem with the way we, collectively as SPU students, are going about our lives. It probably offers little comfort, but there are those of us who are attempting to change this community.

I written a lot, and it's definitely begun to sound like a campaign speech of some sort.

Know that this is all sincere.

Posted by Mark | April 12, 2007 9:30 PM
44

I am a current SPU student, and from what I witnessed, the goings-on of yesterday were very positive. I spoke quite a bit with a few of the Equality Riders and they all expressed that they felt our campus, in general terms, was very open to listening to them. I witnessed many conversations, some of which were disagreements, but all were polite and respectful. Honest conversations took place, and, as many have already mentioned, homosexuality now has a face (faces) for many students who previously had not encountered any GLBTQ persons. Just as a tangible example of the positive effect that I believe this visit has had: plans are being made to form a Gay-Straight Alliance here at SPU, which I think would be a wonderful step (though hopefully not the only step) towards breaking down the sterotypes, misperceptions, and assumptions that so many Christians hold/make towards homosexuals. Change will probably be slow, but I think it will happen. Thus, it seems to me that the Equality Ride was extremely productive. I'm very glad that these individuals had the courage and conviction to come share their stories in environments that could potentially be very threatening.

Also, I want to reiterate Phil's (41) statement that there is huge diversity of beliefs and opinions among SPU's students, staff, and faculty. While the administration of SPU may project an official stance for the University, it is truly impossible to state a belief that we all could claim as a communal opinion.

Finally, in whatever capacity I'm able to do this (I obviously don't speak for the entirety of the student body), I'd like to apologize to anyone who has experienced any sort of pain or suffering, emotional, physical, or otherwise, due to the opinions, positions, or actions of the SPU community. We obviously have problems, and we obviously are not especially sensitive, supportive, or understanding of GLBTQ individuals (afterall, we're mostly populated by kids who have been raised in very traditional, upper middle-class Christian families). As the Equality Riders said, no matter how "grace-filled" or hospitable we are, at the end of the day they would not feel comfortable attending this school. That blatantly points out a problem with the way we, collectively as SPU students, are going about our lives.

It probably offers little comfort, but there are those of us who are attempting to bring about change.

I’ve written a lot, and it's definitely begun to sound impersonal.

Know that this is all sincere.

Posted by Mark | April 12, 2007 9:38 PM
45

As an openly gay, currently enrolled SPU student, I found this blog particularly amusing. Particularly because about a half dozen of my friends called me when it was published and said "Are those your shoes?" As far as equality ride goes, it mattered less that they were wasting time arguing with people who werent listening to them, and more that they were there arguing at all. SPU has been a different place since this dialog opened up. Gay students are, for the first time in the three years I've attended, opening up and declaring themselves to be out and proud. I'm proud to join them, and I hope that more dialog can result from this visit.

Posted by kentington | April 12, 2007 11:31 PM
46

woops, sorry for posting twice

We Christians reject technology since it's obviously the work of the devil, so I always mess up message boards

It's a wonder I can type at all

Posted by Mark | April 13, 2007 11:12 AM
47

I am in my 3rd year at SPU. I am a theatre major, and I have OPENLY GAY friends who attend SPU full time. We are Protestant (hello, dissention!) Christians who are liberal and willing to argue with the conservative little douches who are spoon fed all their beliefs from their rural parents.

There are things about this institution that I do not relate with personally, but it is a great university nonetheless.


I participated in a 1 on 1 debate last year in a theology class in front of 40 people DEFENDING the opinion that being gay is not a sin, the Bible references about the topic are irrelevant in today's context, and the church should be as open and accepting to them as they would to any other willing believer. I did this instead of writing an easy research paper. The class listened to what I had to say, I knew what I was talking about, and I noticed many puzzled faces who were hearing (really hearing) my point of view for the first time. I am trying to be the change I want to see in the world. I want people outside the Christian faith to have a balanced view of those within the faith. We are not all patriotic, conservative, naive, judgemental IDIOTS. BOOYAH.

Posted by Kiersten | April 13, 2007 8:08 PM
48

...and I'm Lutheran, and drukn.

Posted by Kiersten | April 14, 2007 2:11 AM
49

I am a student at SPU and to the credit of our students, ever since Equality Ride was here on Wednesday a lot of students are critically re examining their previously held views. I would say the general consensus on this campus is NOT that LGBT people are going to hell, or that they can't be Christians. I think many students don't know how to reconcile what they think the Bible is saying and their desire to be accepting and loving of anyone and everyone.
Maybe this is just the people that I am around, but most of my friends whole-heartedly supported Soul Force.

Posted by Abigail | April 14, 2007 5:24 PM
50

I am a student at SPU and to the credit of our students, ever since Equality Ride was here on Wednesday a lot of students are critically re examining their previously held views. I would say the general consensus on this campus is NOT that LGBT people are going to hell, or that they can't be Christians. I think many students don't know how to reconcile what they think the Bible is saying and their desire to be accepting and loving of anyone and everyone.
Maybe this is just the people that I am around, but most of my friends whole-heartedly supported Soul Force.

Posted by Abigail | April 14, 2007 5:25 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).