Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 2:03pm

Thank you David for adding more contextual and historic framework. It is very helpful.

Permalink Reply by Laura Scattergood on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 2:29pm

Everybody else is being so good and I am being so bad! 

Keith Saylor said:

Thank you David for adding more contextual and historic framework. It is very helpful.

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 2:33pm

Dear David,

Would it be a correct assumption that the particular individual in this case  "voluntary submitted" to the mission before or during the admission process? Is it the case that this individual voluntarily followed his conscience and revoked his submission by his actions and now seeks to impose his conscience on others by forcing them to submit to his conscience over against that of their own? Is there a political agenda and/or design behind all this at the expense of the conscience' of others who readily submit to the open and stated mission of GFU?

David Nelson Seaman said:

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and comment that George Fox University should be recognized as a the outstanding educational institution it is.    It was formerly Pacific University dating back to the 1890's, and has been operated by Evangelical Quakers for some time.  It is scholastically a very good school and highly regarded.   It is, I belive, ranked as one of top Christian colleges in the county.    And has been targeted by Gay Activists for years.

 There has been no false representation on their part; faculty and students fully acknowledge when applying for admissions and employment that the school is founded on  adherence to a strict doctrinal approach to the Bible being the Word of God and not open to liberal reading. They clearly state in all their literature that they believe the only union acceptable  is the one prescribed in scripture.    They are Evangelical.     Anyone seeking admission has agreed to a voluntary submission to that stated mission.     This is not the first Gay Activists controversy targeting GFU.

A few years ago a Gay Activists group bought a school bus and drove around the country posing as " Freedom Riders", a nod to 1960's Civil Rights activists.    At  GFU they were met not with fire hoses, guard dogs, club wielding police or National Guard escort.    They were instead welcomed and greeted, offered food, and given a respectful audience with school administrators who explained their views on the Bible.      They were welcomed and not disrespected.   

I think  Evangelical Quakers are given the short rope on most blogs  in discussions regarding their views  on marriage and the sexes.     I wonder if we could get some Evangelical Quaker points of view, to balance out this discussion on GFU ?     

Permalink Reply by Laura Scattergood on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 2:48pm

Very good point, Keith.  Nevertheless I am not comfortable associating with GFU anymore for classes, I didn't like the ROTC presence there either and so on. 
 
Keith Saylor said:

Dear David,

Would it be a correct assumption that the particular individual in this case  "voluntary submitted" to the mission before or during the admission process? Is it the case that this individual voluntarily followed his conscience and revoked his submission by his actions and now seeks to impose his conscience on others by forcing them to submit to his conscience over against that of their own? Is there a political agenda and/or design behind all this at the expense of the conscience' of others who readily submit to the open and stated mission of GFU?

David Nelson Seaman said:

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and comment that George Fox University should be recognized as a the outstanding educational institution it is.    It was formerly Pacific University dating back to the 1890's, and has been operated by Evangelical Quakers for some time.  It is scholastically a very good school and highly regarded.   It is, I belive, ranked as one of top Christian colleges in the county.    And has been targeted by Gay Activists for years.

 There has been no false representation on their part; faculty and students fully acknowledge when applying for admissions and employment that the school is founded on  adherence to a strict doctrinal approach to the Bible being the Word of God and not open to liberal reading. They clearly state in all their literature that they believe the only union acceptable  is the one prescribed in scripture.    They are Evangelical.     Anyone seeking admission has agreed to a voluntary submission to that stated mission.     This is not the first Gay Activists controversy targeting GFU.

A few years ago a Gay Activists group bought a school bus and drove around the country posing as " Freedom Riders", a nod to 1960's Civil Rights activists.    At  GFU they were met not with fire hoses, guard dogs, club wielding police or National Guard escort.    They were instead welcomed and greeted, offered food, and given a respectful audience with school administrators who explained their views on the Bible.      They were welcomed and not disrespected.   

I think  Evangelical Quakers are given the short rope on most blogs  in discussions regarding their views  on marriage and the sexes.     I wonder if we could get some Evangelical Quaker points of view, to balance out this discussion on GFU ?     

Permalink Reply by Mackenzie on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 2:52pm

Two pastors from within NWYM have said their F&P doesn't say anything that addresses trans people, only gay. Is it possible that GFU's thing that he had to sign didn't mention trans people either, and since he wasn't planning on having any gay sex, he didn't think there was anything with which he'd conflict?

Keith Saylor said:

Dear David,

Would it be a correct assumption that the particular individual in this case  "voluntary submitted" to the mission before or during the admission process? Is it the case that this individual voluntarily followed his conscience and revoked his submission by his actions and now seeks to impose his conscience on others by forcing them to submit to his conscience over against that of their own? Is there a political agenda and/or design behind all this at the expense of the conscience' of others who readily submit to the open and stated mission of GFU?

David Nelson Seaman said:

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and comment that George Fox University should be recognized as a the outstanding educational institution it is.    It was formerly Pacific University dating back to the 1890's, and has been operated by Evangelical Quakers for some time.  It is scholastically a very good school and highly regarded.   It is, I belive, ranked as one of top Christian colleges in the county.    And has been targeted by Gay Activists for years.

 There has been no false representation on their part; faculty and students fully acknowledge when applying for admissions and employment that the school is founded on  adherence to a strict doctrinal approach to the Bible being the Word of God and not open to liberal reading. They clearly state in all their literature that they believe the only union acceptable  is the one prescribed in scripture.    They are Evangelical.     Anyone seeking admission has agreed to a voluntary submission to that stated mission.     This is not the first Gay Activists controversy targeting GFU.

A few years ago a Gay Activists group bought a school bus and drove around the country posing as " Freedom Riders", a nod to 1960's Civil Rights activists.    At  GFU they were met not with fire hoses, guard dogs, club wielding police or National Guard escort.    They were instead welcomed and greeted, offered food, and given a respectful audience with school administrators who explained their views on the Bible.      They were welcomed and not disrespected.   

I think  Evangelical Quakers are given the short rope on most blogs  in discussions regarding their views  on marriage and the sexes.     I wonder if we could get some Evangelical Quaker points of view, to balance out this discussion on GFU ?     

Permalink Reply by Laura Scattergood on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 3:17pm

Absolutely MacKenzie.  When I got into that discussion about genotype and phenotype and those two things layered on to the psychological identity of the person, I was talking  about different persons' sense of sexual identity, not as how they behave sexually.  So, to exclude a person for what they are genetically and physically does seem a separate issue as to whether they have other than heterosexual relationships.  Further,  certainly anyone who has sexual relationships of any kind outside of a marriage approved by the church, actually ought to be excluded from attendance at the University.  Are these things being applied uniformly to the sexual behavior of all students?  What about a person, let us say a mother who has had a child before enrolling in the University, and has given birth to that child outside the boundaries of a marriage approved by the Meeting?  What is the procedure?  Must she write a statement of repentance and then vow to abstain from all sexual relationships until a marriage approved by the meeting has been blessed and the ink is dry on the legal certificate?   Clearly, medical doctors diagnosed this person and performed this surgery, and this is not something done lightly.  What actually turned me around, and I am writing as what I often refer to as being "rabid heterosexual", is watching a program, I think it was "Nova".  This program highlighted how actually quite common it is for persons to be born with mixed genders, (genetically and in appearance) or for it to be unclear which is the dominant gender.  There were stories of people who were unclear as to what gender they were until adolescence and then they began to have a strong sense of identity towards one of the two genders (in the traditional paradigm of their being just two genders).  There were other people who were never exactly sure, they continued to feel like they were both.  These people were clearly born with these mixed genders, and how can I say that God did not create them? Should they then be condemned for falling in love with either a male or female person, because either way, that would make them "homosexual"? It used to be that when infants were born with ambiguous genitalia, doctors recommended doing surgery.  Modern counsel advised that such a traumatic intrusion could be quite harmful, and clearly, sometimes a mistake is made as to which way to perform the surgery, to lean towards the more masculine or the more feminine phenotype. Last I heard there were two counsels on this. One is to give this child a gender-neutral name and as time goes on and nature takes its course await which characteristics emerge most strongly, physically and emotionally.  The other counsel, now that we have the ability to analyze DNA for subtle indications of gender specific traits, is to raise the child culturally according to the gender the DNA most strongly suggests, and to refrain from surgical intrusion.  In adolescence and young adulthood the child can then decide if submitting to surgery to create more typical secondary sexual characteristics are what the child wants.  In this particular case, I do not know what was going on with the DNA, or the cultural and emotional background of this student, who it seems went from female to male.  I do not know what diagnoses contributed to the decision to change the external body.  However, even if this particular case is not the same exactly as the medical cases I refer to above, it does make me realize that gender is not as simple as I always thought it was, or how simple it is to me, (I am on the girl team and I love it!--but that's MY experience).  It also brings up excluding people for who they are medically and psychologically, not for what they DO.  And if the rules are NO SEX for anyone who is not legally married under the guidelines accepted by George Fox University that means massive CELIBACY!  So everybody has to get with the program, not just people who are not practicing heterosexuals!
 
Mackenzie said:

Two pastors from within NWYM have said their F&P doesn't say anything that addresses trans people, only gay. Is it possible that GFU's thing that he had to sign didn't mention trans people either, and since he wasn't planning on having any gay sex, he didn't think there was anything with which he'd conflict?

Keith Saylor said:

Dear David,

Would it be a correct assumption that the particular individual in this case  "voluntary submitted" to the mission before or during the admission process? Is it the case that this individual voluntarily followed his conscience and revoked his submission by his actions and now seeks to impose his conscience on others by forcing them to submit to his conscience over against that of their own? Is there a political agenda and/or design behind all this at the expense of the conscience' of others who readily submit to the open and stated mission of GFU?

David Nelson Seaman said:

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and comment that George Fox University should be recognized as a the outstanding educational institution it is.    It was formerly Pacific University dating back to the 1890's, and has been operated by Evangelical Quakers for some time.  It is scholastically a very good school and highly regarded.   It is, I belive, ranked as one of top Christian colleges in the county.    And has been targeted by Gay Activists for years.

 There has been no false representation on their part; faculty and students fully acknowledge when applying for admissions and employment that the school is founded on  adherence to a strict doctrinal approach to the Bible being the Word of God and not open to liberal reading. They clearly state in all their literature that they believe the only union acceptable  is the one prescribed in scripture.    They are Evangelical.     Anyone seeking admission has agreed to a voluntary submission to that stated mission.     This is not the first Gay Activists controversy targeting GFU.

A few years ago a Gay Activists group bought a school bus and drove around the country posing as " Freedom Riders", a nod to 1960's Civil Rights activists.    At  GFU they were met not with fire hoses, guard dogs, club wielding police or National Guard escort.    They were instead welcomed and greeted, offered food, and given a respectful audience with school administrators who explained their views on the Bible.      They were welcomed and not disrespected.   

I think  Evangelical Quakers are given the short rope on most blogs  in discussions regarding their views  on marriage and the sexes.     I wonder if we could get some Evangelical Quaker points of view, to balance out this discussion on GFU ?     

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 3:28pm

Good question Mackenzie. This is a fascinating and troubling case. I'm learning more and more about this case with each person I talk with. It very well may happen that GFU finds itself trapped depending on circumstances and the judge who hears the case if it goes to court.

It may be time for GFU to follow the lead of other educational institutions like Hillsdale College in Michigan and no longer accept federal and state funds for conscience sake.

Permalink Reply by Paul Klinkman on 7th mo. 14, 2014 at 11:25pm

In my opinion, the transformative event that changed Friends General Conference was FLGBTQC daily meeting for worship.  It gained a reputation over the years as the most powerful worship session at FGC, full of real issues.

The transformative event that changed Friends' attitudes toward slavery was John Woolman worshiping with slave owners.  Other early 18th century Quaker activists such as Anthony Benezet existed, but they aren't that well remembered.  He didn't worship with Friends.  He did a form of blood pouring outside of meetings for worship. 

I pray that George Fox University be transformed in a way that will work for them, that will strengthen them.

I think that the college's operating policy of deliberately trying to know as little as possible about transgendered people is obviously asking for trouble. 

Permalink Reply by Laura Scattergood on 7th mo. 15, 2014 at 10:45am

Thanks, Paul.  I am getting a lot more information that I need.
 
Paul Klinkman said:

In my opinion, the transformative event that changed Friends General Conference was FLGBTQC daily meeting for worship.  It gained a reputation over the years as the most powerful worship session at FGC, full of real issues.

The transformative event that changed Friends' attitudes toward slavery was John Woolman worshiping with slave owners.  Other early 18th century Quaker activists such as Anthony Benezet existed, but they aren't that well remembered.  He didn't worship with Friends.  He did a form of blood pouring outside of meetings for worship. 

I pray that George Fox University be transformed in a way that will work for them, that will strengthen them.

I think that the college's operating policy of deliberately trying to know as little as possible about transgendered people is obviously asking for trouble. 

Permalink Reply by Laura Scattergood on 7th mo. 15, 2014 at 2:54pm

When I was a freshwoman in college and I learned in anthropology 101 that the concept of race in human beings was only a construct, it only took me about ten minutes to understand that and integrate that information into my cognitive paradigm.  When I began to learn that gender was also a construct it took several months or more to change my understanding.  I was not particularly invested in the idea of races of people to start with, (even though in Sunday School they had certainly indoctrinated me with the song, Be they yellow, black, red or white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world, convincing me in preschool that humanity was divided into four categories of people that were different although equal).  But I was certainly deeply invested in the idea that I was female, (the better of the two genders of course!).  I still identify as female on all levels, but I also understand now that I identify with a construct, a construct that fits in many respects in my case, but nevertheless ought not to be reified as the last word on all aspects of my human experience!

Permalink Reply by Laura Scattergood on 7th mo. 15, 2014 at 4:02pm

Beautiful!!  David, love it!  I am really not as cranky in real life as I seem when I am pontificating!
David Nelson Seaman said:

A long time ago, in Ireland I 'll place it, it was told that a Quaker Meeting was in an uproar.   It was said by many that when  a prayer was given praising God, that all should rise and say the prayer together.    Nonsense, said others, the practice had always been to remain seated so as no one would be seen as rising to the level of the standing God, and thus great reverence would be shown to His divine presence over the Meeting, He alone elevated high above all.

Well, the days and weeks passed, and some would sit, and others would stand, until finally a committee was formed to find out what the old practice had actually been when giving praise to God in Meeting.   No one was old enough to remember what the practice has actually been, until the committee decided to go and find old Elder Patrick.     Elder Patrick was over a hundred years old, it was said, and was there as a child at the very first Quaker Meeting was held in the town. 

Well, the committee created a great dust along the roads  finding its way to Elder Patrick's house, with donkey carts, horses, and all sort of shouting among the committee seeking the privilege to be the one to ask the great question to Elder Patrick.

Elder Patrick was finally found,  the great dust settled somewhat, and someone finally laid it out for Patrick to hear;   " Please help us find the old way to praise the Almighty God when offering prayer for His Divine Presence in Meeting".

"Is the old way for all of us to stand ? "  it was asked.    "No, said Patrick, I do not remember it to be that way".

"Is the old way for all of us to be seated ? " it was asked.    "No, said Patrick, that was not the way either".

But Elder Patrick, the committee implored,  " Out Meeting is divided, the people are angry, and they argue and fight with one another".

Elder Patrick nodded and said,  "Yes, that is it.  That is the old way, and how it was always done".

With Peace and Love- David

Permalink Reply by William F Rushby on 7th mo. 15, 2014 at 5:04pm

Actually, the traditional practice (at least in America and, I assume, the British Isles) was for the supplicant to kneel, and the congregation to rise.  The men turned and faced the door on the men's side of the meetinghouse.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page