Mel White called on Free Community Church on Sunday July 31, 2011 and exhorted the congregation in these challenging times to respond in faith to its mission. I read earlier in his Facebook posting about his visit to his Bali project for street boys and his Phnom Penh orphanage. I commented and invited him to drop by to visit us.
During the worship service, Mel lamented about the decline of the American Empire and the impending collapse of the earth and even Singapore could be submerged due to the greed and arrogance of humankind.
Mel is here as the house guest of Prof Kerry Sieh, his former church member, of Nanyang Technological University. Mel White had introduced Kerry Sieh and his partner to FCC during a previous visit.
On 13 Oct 09, Channel News Asia broadcast a newsclip featuring an interview with Prof. Kerry Sieh, the openly gay head of Singapore’s Earth Observatory. Sieh, who was actively courted by the Singapore government for his expertise, moved to Singapore with his male partner after Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in July 2007 that “Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives”.
Before becoming Director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore, Prof Sieh was a tenured geology professor with an endowed chair at the California Institute of Technology's Tectonics Observatory, a US$30 million privately funded scientific effort, which he and others created at the university. He uprooted and joined NTU when the Singapore government made him an offer he could not refuse – to build a research centre of excellence for the study of earthquake sciences with S$150 million funding.
This visit of Mel reminded me of an earlier article written by Joe Dallas who is critical of Mel who is the founder of Soulforce. It was Soulforce who was instrumental in the decision of Bill Hybels to dissociate recently from Exodus International. It is amazing to me that such an description of Mel was penned by a anti-gay leader.
When Soulforce Calls
JAF4322
Joe Dallas
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 2 (2009). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Synopsis
The gay advocacy group Soulforce presents itself as a faith-based, civil rights organization, promoting justice for homosexuals by confronting churches and Christian leaders who promote the traditional biblical view of homosexuality. Soulforce has adopted teachings from both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and views itself as a modern civil rights movement following the traditions of nonviolent protest. Founded by Mel White, a former ghost writer for Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, Soulforce believes the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, damaging to homosexuals, and must be confronted as its promoters must also be confronted, converted, or ultimately silenced. To this end, it has sponsored demonstrations at denominational conventions, churches, and conferences across the country, and has visited numerous Christian and secular universities. If pastors or Christian leaders choose to dialogue with this group, they should be aware of its erroneous theological positions and should clearly assert their disagreements with Soulforce’s beliefs and goals.
“We must stage powerful and long term direct actions against local churches and local pastors who are the primary source of the antigay propaganda in our communities....”
—Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce1
In the spring of 2008, pastors Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T. D. Jakes, and Bill Hybels shared a dilemma. Each had been informed that his church was selected for a visit from Soulforce, a pro-homosexual religious organization that was sending a group of openly gay couples, along with friends and allies, to attend their worship services and inform their congregations of the “damaging impact of religion based discrimination” towards homosexuals.2
That wasn’t all, however. Soulforce would also “require” a forum for “personal and direct interaction” with each church and its leadership, which could take the form of a shared meal, panel discussion, or private meeting. If the pastors refused, they could expect “creative and visible nonviolent direct action.”3
They weren’t alone. Administrators at Biola University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and numerous other Christian campuses around the country have received similar notice from Soulforce, often resulting in on-campus trespassing, additional security requirements, and arrests.4 Additionally, Focus on the Family’s facilities in Colorado Springs are visited regularly by Soulforce demonstrators, some of whom refuse to leave the property until their demands are met;5 the annual conference of American Catholic Bishops has had its mass interrupted by Soulforce activists;6 denominational conventions have been subjected to Soulforce-engineered demonstrations and disruptions of business;7 and Christianity Today magazine, commenting on the group’s activities, cited Soulforce as an example of “an inescapable conflict for every church” over homosexuality.8
Thus, an increasing number of Christian leaders are facing the question: What should we do when Soulforce calls? This article will attempt to answer that question by examining the history, beliefs, and tactics of Soulforce, and by offering biblical principles and strategies to assist pastors and leaders who will one day encounter this growing and aggressive organization.
REV. MEL WHITE AND THE HISTORY OF SOULFORCE
Soulforce was birthed in 1999 by Rev. Mel White and his partner Gary Nixon, with the intention of recruiting and training volunteers to join in “confronting the antigay words and actions of fundamentalist Christians.”9 White, a former pastor and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, had ghostwritten books for some of America’s foremost Christian leaders, including Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and was recognized as an accomplished film producer and communicator. In his autobiography Stranger at the Gate, however, he describes what was not well known about him: his private and lifelong struggle with homosexuality, a struggle he was aware of from his boyhood in the 1950s. Raised devoutly Christian, he felt his only option was to keep his sexual feelings a secret and marry, which he eventually did, fathering two children, one of whom became the well-known comic actor and screenwriter Mike White.
White recounts, movingly, his attempts to change his sexual orientation through counseling, intensive prayer, and even electroshock therapy.10 Unable to find relief from his attractions to men, he engaged in a number of clandestine homosexual encounters, even while ghostwriting for prominent leaders such as Graham and Falwell, none of whom knew of his sexual leanings. For most of his adult life, he’d believed homosexuality to be wrong, so his lapses into same-sex encounters caused him considerable guilt. His thinking gradually changed, influenced largely by a psychologist at Fuller who advised him, in 1980, that even though he was a married Christian father, he was also a gay man who needed to accept it, fall in love with another man, and move on.11 An epiphany followed: “For twenty five years I had been in a kind of bondage, judging myself, hating myself, trying to change something in the heart of me that could not, should not, be changed.”12
He began discussing his sexuality with his wife, Lyla, and by 1984 he’d begun seeing Nixon, though still married, and eventually was amicably divorced from his wife (who is on record as supporting him in his work with Soulforce). He then formed a partnership with Nixon that was solidified in a California marriage ceremony in 2008.13 His “coming out” in 1993 sent shock-waves through evangelical circles, and the release of his autobiography the next year was accompanied by generous media coverage, from featured newspaper articles to interviews on 60 Minutes and Larry King Live. White was soon to became the most visible and vocal representative for those claiming to be genuinely Christian and openly gay.
From the beginning, though, his goal was not just to “come out,” but also to come out against.” I will not remain silent any longer,” he declared in 1993 while issuing a public challenge to those he referred to as the religious right. “I pledge myself to do my best to prove you wrong with all the courage, wisdom and love I can muster.”14 On this promise he made good. He would soon stage a demonstration against Pat Robertson’s CBN headquarters in Virginia Beach, resulting in trespassing charges for which he would be jailed and then, in Ghandi-style protest, begin a well-publicized hunger strike that would only end when Robertson came to him in jail and promised to change his rhetoric when speaking about homosexuals.15 A similar “Fast for Understanding” was staged in Colorado Springs in protest of Focus on the Family.16 Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church would soon face many similar public displays from White and his allies.17
By 1999, White and Nixon had organized and recruited others who shared their concerns and Soulforce was formed, seeking “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”18 The ensuing decade has seen the group’s visibility and aggression expand, making itself known at annual denominational conventions, church trials for pastors charged with violating their denomination’s standards regarding homosexuality, Christian universities, and churches, both national and worldwide. With public support from allies such as Jay Bakker (son of PTL founders Jim and Tammy Faye Baker),19 Arun Gandhi (grandson of Mohandas Gandhi),20 and Yolanda King (daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr.),21 Soulforce has solidified its image as both a civil rights and progressive religious organization.
SOULFORCE BELIEFS
White continues to identify himself as a bible-believing Christian,22 and the frequent references Soulforce volunteers and associates make to scripture, along with personal claims of faith, suggest a specifically Christian organization.23 Soulforce’s approach to the faith, however, is ecumenical: “Our Creator is not confined to any church or synagogue, any temple or mosque. Our Creator is on the front lines where people are suffering injustice. And when we join God there, we discover what it means to be a son or daughter of God, what it means to be truly human.”24
Soulforce therefore believes that we are all children of God by birth (not rebirth, as Jesus claimed in John 3:3) who discover God’s fatherhood by doing social justice. In fact, the first of the “Six Soulforce Beliefs about Myself ” announces: “I am a child of a loving Creator, a daughter or a son of the Soulforce at the center of the universe.”25 This belief stands in stark contrast to John’s declaration that “as many as received him [Christ] to them gave the power to become the sons of God” ( John 1:12 KJV), and to Jesus’ assertion that no one can come to God but by Him ( John 14:6).
So, while some Soulforce advocates may identify themselves as Christian, the organization’s self-description, posted on its Web site, is apt: “Soulforce is an interfaith and ecumenical movement.”26 The name Soulforce refers to teachings by Gandhi called satyagraha, his term for “truth force.” Gandhi taught that people should live by this truth force through defining a “plan of action that developed inner lives while working to transform society.” These teachings influenced first Gandhi, then King, both of whom White claims as inspirations and models: “Gandhi developed and refined his Satyagraha or ‘soul force’ principles while leading justice movements in South Africa (1893–1915) and India (1915–1948). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., discovered Gandhi’s ‘soul force’ rules and used them to shape his own nonviolent civil rights movement in America.”27 White asks, “How would our [gay] civil rights movement be different if we rediscovered and applied those ‘soul force’ principles…?”28
Seeing itself as following in Gandhi and King’s footsteps— the oppressed (gays) taking a righteous stand against the oppressor (the church)—Soulforce holds to three primary beliefs concerning homosexuality and Christianity: (1) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, (2) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is damaging, and (3) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality must be changed or silenced. Understanding Soulforce requires an understanding of each point.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Wrong”
Soulforce promotes a revision of the Bible as it regards homosexuality. In doing so, it joins established pro-gay religious organizations such as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, The United Church of Christ, and Evangelicals Concerned, all of whom regard the Bible as inspired, but believe that scriptural references to homosexuality found in Genesis 19:1–11, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or simply misunderstood. White explains his position on homosexuality and the Bible: “Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today.”29
To Soulforce, the traditional Christian view that homosexual acts are biblically prohibited, and that homosexuality itself is abnormal, is wrong. By extension, then, all Christians who hold such views are equally wrong.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Damaging”
Here Soulforce goes further than many pro-gay theologians, who simply declare the traditional viewpoint on homosexuality to be incorrect.30 Soulforce insists it is also damaging, causing depression and suicide among homosexuals, and violence against them as well.
Sometimes they claim the traditional view is damaging because unbalanced, homophobic people may use it as an excuse to assault homosexuals. In such cases it’s not the view itself, but its potential for misuse, that’s the problem. One Soulforce volunteer remarked: “I think over and over again how we must help all preachers understand how their negative ‘Biblical pronouncements’ about LGBT persons harms and hurts LGBT persons and gives some violent persons rationale for their violence against them.”31 White, in an open letter to a Catholic Bishop, makes a similar argument: “If God rejects us and you reject us, is it any wonder that our families and friends reject us, that we are demeaned by our classmates, fired from our jobs, evicted from our apartments, hunted down and hounded out of the military, harassed and taunted in the streets, and even killed by teenagers with knives and baseball bats?”32
More often, though, Soulforce claims the traditional view is damaging in and of itself. For example, if you say homosexuality is a sin, that statement not only inspires others to hurt homosexuals, but the statement itself emotionally or spiritually violates them. White argues accordingly: “I’d rather suffer psychological or physical violence any day than be told over and over again the untruth that my sexual orientation is a sickness and a sin; that my Creator doesn’t love me as I am; and that my fifteen year relationship with Gary Nixon isn’t blessed by God.”33
According to Soulforce, then, if you preach that homosexuality is a sin, you inspire others to commit violent acts against homo sexuals, and you yourself, by making that statement, commit violence against them as well. You diminish their sense of worth; you generate depression within them; you inspire rejection, abuse, and violence against them. Thus all Christians (Christian leaders, especially) who hold the traditional view are an ongoing source of suffering to the homosexual population. Consider a few more of White’s statements in this vein:
“These antigay, religion-based teachings and actions have become the primary source of misinformation against sexual and gender minorities, misinformation that leads to suffering and death.”34
“We know that all Christian churches share responsibility for the mistreatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans.”35
“Religious leaders are the primary source of misinformation that leads to suffering and death for sexual and gender minorities.”36
Mistreatment, suffering, violence, death—no wonder Soulforce declares itself “determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious leaders whose anti-homosexual campaigns lead (directly and indirectly) to—suffering.”37 If you believe that a certain teaching causes emotional suffering, physical violence, or death to any group, you’ll no doubt do what’s within your power to change the minds of the people behind the teaching, or silence the teaching itself. Inevitably, then, Soulforce’s first two primary beliefs generate its third.
“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Must Be Changed or Silenced”
“This spiritual violence must end,” declares White. “We love…the body of Christ too much to allow it to continue these policies that lead to suffering and death.”38 Elsewhere he warns, “The toxic rhetoric flows unabated, primarily from sincere but misinformed religious leaders. It is poisoning the national discourse, dividing homes and churches, ruining families and wasting lives. We must do our best to stop that flow of poison at its source.”39
Traditional teaching on homosexuality sparks violence; religious leaders dispense a toxic flow of traditional teaching; the flow must be cut off at its source—churches, Christian schools, evangelistic institutions, or any other places where the traditional biblical view on homosexuality is promoted. But how? “What I suggest to all homosexuals and their supporters,” White advises, “is to create tension between the church and the gay community.”40
To create that tension, Soulforce chooses a church, Christian college, denominational conference, or organization, then contacts them to request a meeting, warning of potential demonstrations or other “direct actions” if they refuse. Such “direct actions” may disrupt or inconvenience, but the group adheres to a strict policy of nonviolence, and there’s no evidence of Soulforce demonstrators ever threatening, vandalizing, name calling, or using obscenity in any form. Some leaders who’ve hosted meetings with Soulforce have positive things to say about the encounters,41 while others who’ve refused to meet their terms have been obliged to have them forcibly removed from their property.42 The meeting they request normally includes an allotted time to present their views to the church or campus, informal discussions, distribution of their literature, and meetings with the church or college leaders.
Annual events include the Equality Ride (bus riders visiting Christian seminaries and Bible colleges), the American Family Outing (delegates visiting megachurches), and Soulforce Q (international outreach). Clearly, then, Soulforce’s attempts to change the church’s views on homosexuality are expanding. So let me offer three general suggestions to consider when Soulforce calls.
DIALOGUE IS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY
We are not biblically required to respond to every charge leveled against us, nor to every request for a conversation. Jesus at times refused to engage in dialogue when dialogue seemed useless or distracting, or when those “baiting” Him hoped to provoke an argument (Matt. 21:24). Paul likewise reserved the right to deny audience to men who would introduce false doctrine to churches he was responsible for (Gal. 2:5). Soulforce presents its concerns as though every pastor or administrator is obliged to consider them, but the fact is, a leader’s responsibility is first to the people he serves, not to an outside group demanding his attention.
There is scriptural precedent for avoiding conversations or debates that may divert a group from its primary goal, as there’s precedent for pastors protecting their flock from error. Nehemiah, for example, knew his responsibility was to rebuild Jerusalem, leading his men to fulfill his God-given vision. When Israel’s enemies tried to distract him from this, first by mockery (Neh. 4:1–3), then by threats (Neh. 4:11), then finally by an invitation to dialogue (Neh. 6:5–7), he ignored their attempts, focusing instead on the work at hand. In doing so he was hardly mistreating those who wanted to distract him. Rather, he knew his priorities, recognized his limited time and energy, and refused to engage with others who would divert him from his primary purposes.
Any leader contacted by Soulforce should “go and do likewise” by considering, first and foremost, his priorities. How does their request for access to his congregation or group match the needs of the group itself, and his God-given vision for it? If it doesn’t, then a polite but clear refusal of their invitation is called for. But if after prayerful consideration, he concludes that an encounter with Soulforce would be in the best interest of his organization or flock, then two more points should be considered.
SOULFORCE PREMISES ARE ERRONEOUS
Space prohibits a detailed response in this article to Soulforce’s claim that the Bible verses traditionally understood to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. A clear reading of these verses in context, utilizing common sense and respect for the inspiration of both testaments, leaves little doubt, however, as to their unambiguous prohibition of homosexual relations of any sort, under any circumstances. Still, an effective response to the pro-gay interpretation of Scripture requires an understanding of that interpretation and a detailed rebuttal of it.
It’s essential that those deciding to dialogue with Soul force first brush up on the finer points of pro-gay theology, because any dialogue with a group claiming homosexuality and Christianity are compatible must begin with either a concession to their claim or a challenge to it. Two helpful resources would be The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas (Harvest House, 2007) and The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon (Abingdon Press, 2002).
Likewise, the premise that traditional teaching on homosexuality leads to the suffering of homosexuals calls for rebuttal. No doubt there is prejudice against homosexuals, evidenced at times in acts of violence and cruel words. Proof of a link between biblical teaching and violence against homosexuals, however, is lacking, though Soulforce presents this premise as established fact. One might respond that Anti-Semitism (prejudice against Jews) exists, and Christians generally believe Jews who reject Jesus the Messiah are unsaved. Does it logically follow that those who recognize Christ as Messiah therefore create Anti-Semitism? Likewise, Scripture teaches that parents should train their children, and some parents abuse their children. Shall biblical teaching on parenting be blamed for the horrors of child abuse, or shall we admit the obvious and significant distinction between a belief and its perversion or misapplication? Soulforce claims to the contrary, saying that homosexuality is wrong is one thing; encouraging hatred towards homosexuals is something obviously and entirely different.
Consider Soulforce’s Concerns; Assert Your Own
Respectful dialogue requires a careful analysis of the other’s claims, so when dialogue with Soulforce is decided on, then hearing their concerns is necessary. Much can be learned in doing so. But an error Christians often make when dealing with homosexual activists is to overindulge their desire for us to hear their concerns, while offering none of our own. “The servant of the Lord must not strive,” Paul warned, “but must be gentle to all men” (2 Tim. 2:24). Some leaders who have dealt with Soulforce seem to have achieved at least that part of the passage, congratulating themselves for having been gentle and respectful, leaving the meeting keenly aware of Soulforce’s complaints and concerns. One wonders, though, if Soulforce had a clue about any concerns the pastors themselves may have had.
Paul did, after all, continue by saying God’s servant must be “apt to teach…instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:24–25 KJV). Surely a Christian leader who believes that homosexuality is wrong will be concerned for the spiritual welfare of Soulforce delegates who claim to be both gay and Christian (as many do). Surely such leaders, believing homosexuality to be sin, will be concerned about this group’s aggressive commitment to encouraging its normalization and celebration. And surely such leaders will feel some injunction to, as Paul said, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather, reprove them” (Eph. 5:11 KJV). So those hosting a dialogue should insure that time spent expressing these concerns to Soulforce is equal to the time spent hearing theirs. If a conversation is requested, then let it be understood in advance as a mutual dialogue, not a monologue, because in the end, this dialogue is inevitable and unavoidable.
The past year (2008) saw unprecedented aggression from the gay rights movement, as it sought legitimization of homosexuality and the marginalization of any group or individual who opposes it. And since the last organized force resisting this movement is, for the most part, the Christian church, Christianity Today’s editorial on Soulforce and a Christian response to it seems both relevant and ominous:
“Soulforce’s message to evangelicals is clear: You are next.”43
Joe Dallas is the program director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual/relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors and is the author of three books on human sexuality, including Desires in Conflict (Harvest House, 1991) and A Strong Delusion (Harvest House, 1996).
notes
1 “Why We Can’t Wait to End This Debate!” Interview in Gay Today.com, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.
2 “Soulforce: The American Family Outing,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/AFOcomplete.pdf.
3 Ibid.
4 “The Equality Ride,” http://www.soulforce.org/equalityride.
5 “Pro-Gay Protestors Arrested at Focus,” citizenlink.com, May 2, 2005,http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/ A000000335.cfm.
6 “History of Soulforce 1999–2006,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
7 Ibid.
8 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches,” Christianity Today, August 1, 2003, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/august/31.33.html.
9 “Soulforce 1999–2006,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
10 Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).
11 Ibid., 155.
12 Ibid., 155–56.
13 http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/DocServer/JEB080618_Mel_White_and_Gary_Nixon_Wedding_ Homily.pdf?docID=4624.
14 Stranger, 269.
15 “Partners in Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/10.
16 “Mel White Launches ‘Fast for Understanding,’” Holysmoke.org, http://www.holysmoke.org/ sdhok/homo06.htm.
17 “Jerry Falwell, Mel White, and the Model of Intervention,” Colorado Confidential, http://coloradoconfidential.com/ showDiary.do?diaryId=2068.
18 Soulforce Vision Statement from http://www.soulforce.org.
19 “Soulforce Meets with Joel Osteen; New Birth Next Target,” Gay Christian Movement Watch, http:// gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/soulfarce-meets-with-joel-osteen/.
20 “Media Photos,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/746.
21 Ibid.
22 Stranger, 238.
23 See, e.g., testimonials of the Freedom Riders at the “Equality Ride Blog,” http:// www.soulforce.org/article/1440.
24 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
25 “Six Soulforce Beliefs,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/567.
26 Ibid.
27 Mel White, “A Soulforce Call for Direct Action: Bringing Truth and Love to Lynchburg,” February 22, 1999, http://www.soulforce.org/article/525.
28 Mel White, “The Original 17 Step Journey,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/531.
29 “What The Bible Says—And Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/ homosexuality-bible.
30 See, e.g., John Boswell’s prominent defense of pro-gay theology, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), and for detailed rebuttal see Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), and Joe Dallas’ The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2006).
31 “Bishop T. D. Jakes Agrees to Ongoing Dialogue with LGBT & Straight-Ally Families,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/email_campaign/email_5_22_2008.html.
32 http://www.whosoever.org/v5i4/mel.html.
33 Mel White, “The Second Trial of Jimmy Creech,” Whosoever, http://www.whosoever.org/ editorial/creechtrial.html.
34 Mel White, “Why We Can’t Wait for This Debate to End!” Gay Today, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.
35 http://www.soulforce.org/article/469.
36 http://www.soulforce.org/article/395.
37 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
38 “Declaring an Unholy War,” Circuit Rider’s Range, http://www.crrange.com/soulwar.html.
39 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.
40 “Mel White Speaks about Being Gay and Christian in America,” Collegiate Times, http://www.collegiatetimes.com/ news/1/ARTICLE/8052/2006-11-16.html.
41 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1107 for comments.
42 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1483 for one of many examples.
43 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches.”
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Progress Report on Vavuniya Project
Progress Report on Vavuniya Project
I just returned from another arduous visit to the Chen Su Lan Education Center in Vavuniya, the Gateway to the North in Tamil majority region in Sri Lanka. This morning’s news headlined “Tamil Tiger-linked party wins big in local polls,” in reporting on last Saturday’s Local Councils elections. This is the first local election after the four decades of ethnic conflict in which the Tamil National Alliance seized victory in 18 of the 26 contested councils amid alleged voting buying and intimidation.
My journey by car took a strenuous eight hours of driving and with stops leaving from Vavuniya at eleven in the morning to reach the Colombo International Airport to catch the midnight flight to Singapore in the morning at six. After some rest I gave an address in a first ever half-day public Interfaith seminar on Religious faiths and Sexual Orientation.
On this trip I was made aware of the spirit of D T Niles whom I regard as my spiritual mentor. I began my ministry in 1954 fresh out of seminary from Boston University to deliver an address reflecting on Rajah Manikam’s “Christianity and the Asian Revolution.” Around the same period I met up with D T who was influential in setting the course of my ministry. He personally invited me to have my first ecumenical conference in 1965 in what was then in serene surroundings of the “colonial” Queens Hotel along the picturesque lake in Kandy. It was a meeting on “Confessional Families and the Churches in Asia.”
This was followed by an invitation to be the Conference Preacher in the Methodist Conference in which D T was the President. Here was a giant of a preacher inviting me a novice preacher. As expected you cannot refuse D T and he even gave me the “text” which he took from a classic Chinese poem – “The trees would like to be still but the winds keep blowing.” The winds continue to blow all these years. That imagery stuck in my mind.
Surprisingly when I was interviewing the candidates who applied for teaching positions at the CSL Center for O and A level students and Adults I opened up the application form of Niles Jayanayaki William. The name of Niles leapt from the form and before me was one of the members of the extended Niles family. She had just retired from teaching at the age of fifty last year and came to the CSL Center to take a computer course. When she found that we needed English teachers she applied. To me it is an act of providence and she is exactly the kind of person that I was looking for. She was able to finish her university education in English and was teaching since then in the government schools. I am not surprised if the spirit of D T is behind this too!
The level of English in the schools now is pathetically low and compounded with the lack of teachers even those below the required minimum for teaching. But English periods are scheduled for schools from primary to A levels. It was not difficult for me to identify that we need help to upgrade the low level ofEnglish instruction and I am of focussing on students from two years before the O level to A level and the adults in the community.
Unless the level of English education is improved they will not be able to take advantage from the courses which we will teach to use the Computer. There is neither Sinhala or Tamil full and direct access to the internet except through using the English keyboard. There is excitement about Computer courses but if they do not have a minimum command of English they cannot benefit from the Internet.
The CSL Center is poised to provide free quality English instruction to reach the students and adults who have the capacity to upgrade themselves. Free computer training is an extra tool for their educational development.
For another project I am looking for responsible people who can administer a micro financing scheme to help the poor generate income through developing small business. The money is already available but I need people on the ground to manage the programme.
There are some encouraging signs appearing. An NGO was organizing a walk from the south to Jaffna to raise money for the first Cancer Hospital there. Groups along the way participated in the walk. When it passed Vavuniya I was invited by Brigadier General Napagoda who is commanding the 56 Division to join him in meeting the walkers passing through the Army Camp and then had breakfast in his home before we followed them to the border crossing in Omanthe.
The trains are able to reach only Omanthe now and there is free access across the border to Jaffna. But travellers from the north still have to pass through the border and may face some security checks at this checkpoint point after they alight from the buses.
BG Napagoda then drove us for my second visit to Kela Bogaswewa which is about two hours through the jungle to some Sinhala villages. We saw elephant tracks and people repairing the irrigation canals and “tanks” for storing water during the rainy season for the rice fields. The last time I visited the clearing of the land mines was taking place for the area which was a battleground. With the villages returning and the water made available the fields will soon be lush with rice plants.
The Minister Agriculture whom I met earlier had informed me that Sri Lanka is now self-sufficient in rice but not enough to export.
I visited another former battle zone in Mannar on the way to meet Father Emilianuspillai of the Shrine of our Lady of the Rosary in Madhu Church. I have met Father earlier when he was serving in the Church in Vavuniya. He was preparing for the annual festival where around 500,000 pilgrims gather. The church buildings which were damaged have been restored. This church has a long history reaching back to around 400 years ago when the country was under Portuguese colonial rule.
Much more needs to be done for education and to open more land for agricultural purposes. There is lack of employment opportunities and people are struggling to survive under harsh conditions. The area is a safe place and I am trying to reach out to the religious leaders in Vavuniya to use the Centre to further interfaith relations and together develop community service to the people. Again resources are available but project carriers are hard to come by. Faith communities will have to assume responsibility to assist in developing the community.
The CSL Trust will continue to explore ways to help to bring about reconciliation and to promote peace and assist in development of the people.
I just returned from another arduous visit to the Chen Su Lan Education Center in Vavuniya, the Gateway to the North in Tamil majority region in Sri Lanka. This morning’s news headlined “Tamil Tiger-linked party wins big in local polls,” in reporting on last Saturday’s Local Councils elections. This is the first local election after the four decades of ethnic conflict in which the Tamil National Alliance seized victory in 18 of the 26 contested councils amid alleged voting buying and intimidation.
My journey by car took a strenuous eight hours of driving and with stops leaving from Vavuniya at eleven in the morning to reach the Colombo International Airport to catch the midnight flight to Singapore in the morning at six. After some rest I gave an address in a first ever half-day public Interfaith seminar on Religious faiths and Sexual Orientation.
On this trip I was made aware of the spirit of D T Niles whom I regard as my spiritual mentor. I began my ministry in 1954 fresh out of seminary from Boston University to deliver an address reflecting on Rajah Manikam’s “Christianity and the Asian Revolution.” Around the same period I met up with D T who was influential in setting the course of my ministry. He personally invited me to have my first ecumenical conference in 1965 in what was then in serene surroundings of the “colonial” Queens Hotel along the picturesque lake in Kandy. It was a meeting on “Confessional Families and the Churches in Asia.”
This was followed by an invitation to be the Conference Preacher in the Methodist Conference in which D T was the President. Here was a giant of a preacher inviting me a novice preacher. As expected you cannot refuse D T and he even gave me the “text” which he took from a classic Chinese poem – “The trees would like to be still but the winds keep blowing.” The winds continue to blow all these years. That imagery stuck in my mind.
Surprisingly when I was interviewing the candidates who applied for teaching positions at the CSL Center for O and A level students and Adults I opened up the application form of Niles Jayanayaki William. The name of Niles leapt from the form and before me was one of the members of the extended Niles family. She had just retired from teaching at the age of fifty last year and came to the CSL Center to take a computer course. When she found that we needed English teachers she applied. To me it is an act of providence and she is exactly the kind of person that I was looking for. She was able to finish her university education in English and was teaching since then in the government schools. I am not surprised if the spirit of D T is behind this too!
The level of English in the schools now is pathetically low and compounded with the lack of teachers even those below the required minimum for teaching. But English periods are scheduled for schools from primary to A levels. It was not difficult for me to identify that we need help to upgrade the low level ofEnglish instruction and I am of focussing on students from two years before the O level to A level and the adults in the community.
Unless the level of English education is improved they will not be able to take advantage from the courses which we will teach to use the Computer. There is neither Sinhala or Tamil full and direct access to the internet except through using the English keyboard. There is excitement about Computer courses but if they do not have a minimum command of English they cannot benefit from the Internet.
The CSL Center is poised to provide free quality English instruction to reach the students and adults who have the capacity to upgrade themselves. Free computer training is an extra tool for their educational development.
For another project I am looking for responsible people who can administer a micro financing scheme to help the poor generate income through developing small business. The money is already available but I need people on the ground to manage the programme.
There are some encouraging signs appearing. An NGO was organizing a walk from the south to Jaffna to raise money for the first Cancer Hospital there. Groups along the way participated in the walk. When it passed Vavuniya I was invited by Brigadier General Napagoda who is commanding the 56 Division to join him in meeting the walkers passing through the Army Camp and then had breakfast in his home before we followed them to the border crossing in Omanthe.
The trains are able to reach only Omanthe now and there is free access across the border to Jaffna. But travellers from the north still have to pass through the border and may face some security checks at this checkpoint point after they alight from the buses.
BG Napagoda then drove us for my second visit to Kela Bogaswewa which is about two hours through the jungle to some Sinhala villages. We saw elephant tracks and people repairing the irrigation canals and “tanks” for storing water during the rainy season for the rice fields. The last time I visited the clearing of the land mines was taking place for the area which was a battleground. With the villages returning and the water made available the fields will soon be lush with rice plants.
The Minister Agriculture whom I met earlier had informed me that Sri Lanka is now self-sufficient in rice but not enough to export.
I visited another former battle zone in Mannar on the way to meet Father Emilianuspillai of the Shrine of our Lady of the Rosary in Madhu Church. I have met Father earlier when he was serving in the Church in Vavuniya. He was preparing for the annual festival where around 500,000 pilgrims gather. The church buildings which were damaged have been restored. This church has a long history reaching back to around 400 years ago when the country was under Portuguese colonial rule.
Much more needs to be done for education and to open more land for agricultural purposes. There is lack of employment opportunities and people are struggling to survive under harsh conditions. The area is a safe place and I am trying to reach out to the religious leaders in Vavuniya to use the Centre to further interfaith relations and together develop community service to the people. Again resources are available but project carriers are hard to come by. Faith communities will have to assume responsibility to assist in developing the community.
The CSL Trust will continue to explore ways to help to bring about reconciliation and to promote peace and assist in development of the people.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Call for Religious Tolerance
It is important and necessary to understand a religious interpretation from the perspective of a member of his/her own faith community. This was my experience when I removed my Christian reading spectacles and put on the Muslim spectacles of Ibrahim Kalin in his article "Sources of Tolerance and Intolerance in Islam." He had primarily written to a pluralistic audience for he published it in the book "Religious Tolerance in World Religions" edited by Jacob Neusner & Bruce Chilton.
The Qur'an and the Hadith or sayings and acts of Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) reveal the multi-religious environment in which Islam finds itself and it had to deal with the issue of religious tolerance.
The special relationship with Judaism and Christianity is acknowledged because along with Islam they are regarded as People of the Book and Children of Abraham. Historically Islamic laws grant rights to non-Muslims including freedom of religion, property, travel, education and government employment. Socially, there is no caste system. Politically, Muslim rulers are pragmatic and forced conversions and economic discrimination are not to their interest.
The three Abrahamic faith communities are called to uphold monotheism. However, the diversity of faith communities is to test them in their struggle for virtue and common good. The true religion is one that surrenders oneself to God fully and unconditionally.
God could have created one single faith community but the diversity is for each to engage in vying with one another for the common good. It is on this basis that we build religious tolerance.
Divine revelation is acknowledged but God works with different religious societies. According to the Hadith, the different human communities develop different theological languages and form their distinctive identities.
"O humans! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another" (al Hujurat 49:13).
The oneness of God is confessed and the plurality of ways or paths to God is affirmed. "Unto every one of you have We appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He(willed it otherwise)in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then with one another in doing good works! Unto God you must all return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ." (al Madiah 5:48).
While there exists religious and sectarian differences we are called to transcend them. The Qu'ran defines true piety "as having full consciousness of God, believing in his books and prophets, and doing such virtuous acts as praying, alms-giving, and helping the poor and the needy.
Christians remained loyal to the Medinan Treaty against the Meccan polytheists. Whereas some prominent Jews at that time were supporting the Meccans in their war against the Muslims. However, the Muslims criticize the Christians for introducing the corrupting elements like the divine nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
On the problem of conversion al Baqarah 2:256 proclaims that "there is no compulsion in religion." Fakh al-Din interprets that "God has not built faith upon compulsion and pressure but on acceptance and free choice."
The teaching regarded as "sword verses' on violence and war stems from the conflict with the Meccan polytheists. This is because Islamic teaching on the unity of God cannot be reconciled with paganism and polytheism. Further, the Meccans plotted to kill the Prophet, expel the Muslims from their homeland and destroy the Muslim community.
On the question of apostasy the Hadith rule is to "kill those who change their religion." It is based on the changing political alliance and betraying the Muslim community especially when they are at war. Contemporary Islamic scholars conclude that present socio-historical context prevents applying that ruling.
Faith communities today are called to evolve a culture of tolerance and accommodation. All must show respect for one another without compromising the integrity and distinctiveness of one's religion.
Peace be upon you.
The Qur'an and the Hadith or sayings and acts of Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) reveal the multi-religious environment in which Islam finds itself and it had to deal with the issue of religious tolerance.
The special relationship with Judaism and Christianity is acknowledged because along with Islam they are regarded as People of the Book and Children of Abraham. Historically Islamic laws grant rights to non-Muslims including freedom of religion, property, travel, education and government employment. Socially, there is no caste system. Politically, Muslim rulers are pragmatic and forced conversions and economic discrimination are not to their interest.
The three Abrahamic faith communities are called to uphold monotheism. However, the diversity of faith communities is to test them in their struggle for virtue and common good. The true religion is one that surrenders oneself to God fully and unconditionally.
God could have created one single faith community but the diversity is for each to engage in vying with one another for the common good. It is on this basis that we build religious tolerance.
Divine revelation is acknowledged but God works with different religious societies. According to the Hadith, the different human communities develop different theological languages and form their distinctive identities.
"O humans! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another" (al Hujurat 49:13).
The oneness of God is confessed and the plurality of ways or paths to God is affirmed. "Unto every one of you have We appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He(willed it otherwise)in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then with one another in doing good works! Unto God you must all return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ." (al Madiah 5:48).
While there exists religious and sectarian differences we are called to transcend them. The Qu'ran defines true piety "as having full consciousness of God, believing in his books and prophets, and doing such virtuous acts as praying, alms-giving, and helping the poor and the needy.
Christians remained loyal to the Medinan Treaty against the Meccan polytheists. Whereas some prominent Jews at that time were supporting the Meccans in their war against the Muslims. However, the Muslims criticize the Christians for introducing the corrupting elements like the divine nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
On the problem of conversion al Baqarah 2:256 proclaims that "there is no compulsion in religion." Fakh al-Din interprets that "God has not built faith upon compulsion and pressure but on acceptance and free choice."
The teaching regarded as "sword verses' on violence and war stems from the conflict with the Meccan polytheists. This is because Islamic teaching on the unity of God cannot be reconciled with paganism and polytheism. Further, the Meccans plotted to kill the Prophet, expel the Muslims from their homeland and destroy the Muslim community.
On the question of apostasy the Hadith rule is to "kill those who change their religion." It is based on the changing political alliance and betraying the Muslim community especially when they are at war. Contemporary Islamic scholars conclude that present socio-historical context prevents applying that ruling.
Faith communities today are called to evolve a culture of tolerance and accommodation. All must show respect for one another without compromising the integrity and distinctiveness of one's religion.
Peace be upon you.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Abraham - Curse or Blessing?
Abraham's Curse: Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the West by Bruce Chilton is a book donated by Old Testament Professor Seow Choon Leong of Princeton University to Trinity Trinity College Library in Singapore. I stumbled upon this book and was captivated by the interpretation that Chilton made on sacrificial violence.
Chilton has traced the roots of violence in the three Abrahammic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The roots were grounded in the story of Abraham who heard the command of God to sacrifice his son as a ritualistic offering to God as recorded in the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an.
The Jewish/Christian tradition identifies Abraham/Sarah's son as Isaac whereas the Islamic tradition regards Abraham/Hagar's son as Ishmael who was to be sacrificed.
While the offering of Abraham's son was interrupted by God and the offering was replaced by a ram(Genesis 22:11-14), the Islamic tradition teaches that it was also a test of faith and for "those devoted to doing good" will be rewarded "as if seeing God." (As Saffat Surah 37:105.
The Abrahammic tradition is the conviction that God calls for the sacrifice of the offering of Isaac/Ismael or Jesus. The sacrifice of the son or self-sacrifice of Jesus is required. Upon this belief the followers of this tradition have extolled martyrdom and justified violence. Offerings of themselves and of their children and youths and citizens upon the different altars in defense of their faith and country have been regarded as just and honorable.
As a result violence prevails and persists down through history in situations of conflict and war that human kind find themselves. Blood sacrifice not only of animals but of humans are deemed to be necessary.
The question that we need to ask, "Did God really ask for such sacrifices leading to violence to resolve human conflicts." Or is an attempt for sinful human creatures to justify themselves when they resort to violence which destroys and kill.
We tend to follow the tradition from the very beginning that God desired and accepted human sacrifice. This was the practice of the other religions around them although the offerings were made to different gods. Such sacrifices were practiced in primitive societies. This led also to the promotion of martyrdom that glorified those who gave their lives as a ritual offering to God and for the cause of their religious faith.
Jews, Christians and Muslims demand literal sacrifice from their followers. Jews have died in resisting persecutions, Christians have engaged in Crusades and Muslims have participated in jihads. They based their sacrifice on the example of Abraham willingly offering his son.
The question today is whether sacrificial violence is inevitable and is it a matter of one's religious faith.
One interpretation of the Genesis story is that after Yahweh saw the dedication of Abraham the divine declaration was made that all human sacrificial action in relation to Isaac should cease and never again to be repeated.
The Qur'anic conclusion is that "You have already fulfilled the dream (which tested your loyal obedience to the command so you no longer have to offer your son in sacrifice. Thus do WE reward those devoted to doing good as if seeing God (As Saffat Surah 2:105.) In doing good we all see or meet God.
Christians are to understand that the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is because he was convinced that his death will benefit others and will reveal the necessity to live under the reign of God.
According to the teaching of the Prophet in Al Baqarah Surah 2:256, there should be "no compulsion in religion." Jihad was necessary to preserve the freedom to make Islam possible when confronted with the attacks from their enemies. It is not toi force or coerce others to submit to Allah.
History is strewn with the carcases of those who were placed upon the altars of war and no one religion inasmuch as they claim to be engaged in just wars is not implicated by the evil of violence itself.
The more the members of the Abrahammic faith relate to one another in mutual challenge in understanding one's faith the quicker we turn the curse of
Abraham during all this time of violence and conflict into the blessings of
Abraham of peace and fruitfulness.
The concluding message of Chilton is "Resisting that prospect as part of the purpose of theological reflection within the Abrahammic traditions for millennia, and is now the common vocation of all those who see that we have no human future if we insist on remaining on Mount Moriah. The distinctive voices of the Torah, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) agree that Moriah is behind us, never to be visited again in whatever form it takes in its myriad disguises, is not God's. It is time for us, whether believers or not, to come down to the place of promise, where we can see that no moral value attaches to sacrificing any human life to any cause, with the possible exception of one's own.
Chilton has traced the roots of violence in the three Abrahammic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The roots were grounded in the story of Abraham who heard the command of God to sacrifice his son as a ritualistic offering to God as recorded in the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an.
The Jewish/Christian tradition identifies Abraham/Sarah's son as Isaac whereas the Islamic tradition regards Abraham/Hagar's son as Ishmael who was to be sacrificed.
While the offering of Abraham's son was interrupted by God and the offering was replaced by a ram(Genesis 22:11-14), the Islamic tradition teaches that it was also a test of faith and for "those devoted to doing good" will be rewarded "as if seeing God." (As Saffat Surah 37:105.
The Abrahammic tradition is the conviction that God calls for the sacrifice of the offering of Isaac/Ismael or Jesus. The sacrifice of the son or self-sacrifice of Jesus is required. Upon this belief the followers of this tradition have extolled martyrdom and justified violence. Offerings of themselves and of their children and youths and citizens upon the different altars in defense of their faith and country have been regarded as just and honorable.
As a result violence prevails and persists down through history in situations of conflict and war that human kind find themselves. Blood sacrifice not only of animals but of humans are deemed to be necessary.
The question that we need to ask, "Did God really ask for such sacrifices leading to violence to resolve human conflicts." Or is an attempt for sinful human creatures to justify themselves when they resort to violence which destroys and kill.
We tend to follow the tradition from the very beginning that God desired and accepted human sacrifice. This was the practice of the other religions around them although the offerings were made to different gods. Such sacrifices were practiced in primitive societies. This led also to the promotion of martyrdom that glorified those who gave their lives as a ritual offering to God and for the cause of their religious faith.
Jews, Christians and Muslims demand literal sacrifice from their followers. Jews have died in resisting persecutions, Christians have engaged in Crusades and Muslims have participated in jihads. They based their sacrifice on the example of Abraham willingly offering his son.
The question today is whether sacrificial violence is inevitable and is it a matter of one's religious faith.
One interpretation of the Genesis story is that after Yahweh saw the dedication of Abraham the divine declaration was made that all human sacrificial action in relation to Isaac should cease and never again to be repeated.
The Qur'anic conclusion is that "You have already fulfilled the dream (which tested your loyal obedience to the command so you no longer have to offer your son in sacrifice. Thus do WE reward those devoted to doing good as if seeing God (As Saffat Surah 2:105.) In doing good we all see or meet God.
Christians are to understand that the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is because he was convinced that his death will benefit others and will reveal the necessity to live under the reign of God.
According to the teaching of the Prophet in Al Baqarah Surah 2:256, there should be "no compulsion in religion." Jihad was necessary to preserve the freedom to make Islam possible when confronted with the attacks from their enemies. It is not toi force or coerce others to submit to Allah.
History is strewn with the carcases of those who were placed upon the altars of war and no one religion inasmuch as they claim to be engaged in just wars is not implicated by the evil of violence itself.
The more the members of the Abrahammic faith relate to one another in mutual challenge in understanding one's faith the quicker we turn the curse of
Abraham during all this time of violence and conflict into the blessings of
Abraham of peace and fruitfulness.
The concluding message of Chilton is "Resisting that prospect as part of the purpose of theological reflection within the Abrahammic traditions for millennia, and is now the common vocation of all those who see that we have no human future if we insist on remaining on Mount Moriah. The distinctive voices of the Torah, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) agree that Moriah is behind us, never to be visited again in whatever form it takes in its myriad disguises, is not God's. It is time for us, whether believers or not, to come down to the place of promise, where we can see that no moral value attaches to sacrificing any human life to any cause, with the possible exception of one's own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
