In another post we will publish Prof. Rob Gagnon’s response to Richard Cohen’s new and curiously “gay”-affirmative approach to the homosexual issue.  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Warren,

I certainly don’t think Richard Cohen or anyone needs to apologize for stating the obvious truth that “Change [away from and rejecting homosexuality] is possible.” If we were to apologize for everything that “offends” hardened LGBT activists, we’d be apologizing 24/7.

The question is, when will YOU apologize for affirming homosexuality as an acceptable (or innocuous) identity — while claiming (falsely) to uphold biblical orthodoxy? When will YOU repent for working hand-in-hand with “gay” activists who are diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview on homosexuality as an overcomable sexual sin (and an abomination) — by actively discrediting the need AND potential for wholesome change away from same-sex behavior and indulging same-sex desires?

You should either publicly apologize for undermining Scriptural (and observable) Truth — or renounce your claims to be faithful to historic Christian sexual teachings. This request is made more urgent by your employment with an evangelical institution, Grove City College, which purports to be “authentically Christian” — something few biblically-faithful observers of your recent flirtation with pro-”gay” advocacy would accuse you of being. 

I can document all the above statements concerning your conduct and “gay”-affirming advocacy, which has caused widespread consternation and confusion in Christian circles, and within the pro-family movement. You (or anyone) may publish this if you wish. 

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera 

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org 

Cc: pro-family leaders

Following is Warren Throckmorton’s daily e-mail for today (or view online HERE)::

From: Warren Throckmorton <ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu>

Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:08:35 +0000

To: <americansfortruth@gmail.com>

Subject: Warren Throckmorton

International Healing Foundation Comes Out?

Posted on www.wthrockmorton.com  Oct. 31, 2011

Or something.

Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation has re-invented itself as a LGBTQU (U for unwanted) organization on a new website called Coming Out Loved.

On Coming Out Loved, gay affirming people can find a page full of LGB resources as well as an apology from Cohen:

We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community who may have been hurt by our message of “change.” As the director of IHF, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. I did not realize that by stating, “Change is Possible,” some would be offended. That was the furthest thing from my heart and mind. To think that our message of “change” would cause further pain to LGBTQ youth and adults is painful to imagine … I am deeply and profoundly sorry.

Really? Is this a sign of the apocalypse?

Whatever it is, I doubt it is going very far. The website also has the old references to same-sex attraction being caused by environment and family background, and to treatment to resolve “unwanted same-sex attraction.” NARTH’s protocol for change therapy is there along with the old list of reparative therapists for referral. Cohen is still offering his book Coming Out Straight, one of the most direct promotions of the change paradigm ever. Moreover, Chris Doyle is speaking this weekend at the NARTH conference, along with a speaker who promotes criminalization of homosexuality.

Perhaps I am cynical, but the changes just look like business as usual along with a parody of gay affirming therapy.

This is photo from Warren Throckmorton's blog taken from Ricard Cohen's online video. To watch the actual video with Richard Cohen, go to Intenational Healing Foundation's website at www.gaytostraight.org.

But then again, in the promo video for the new attitude, there is a rainbow flag. (Note [in photo of video at left] the flag circled in the screen cap to the left).

I am looking forward to seeing reaction from AFTAH, PFOX, Liberty Counsel, JONAH and the like.

Seriously, if the IHF crew want to be taken seriously, they need to explain more about how and why they are expecting people to trust them. Also, if the same touch therapy and pillow beating protocols are on the table, then taking a neutral stance is still not enough to address concerns about their work.

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton

Throckmorton asserts that proclamations of truth constitute a “considerable offense” [against people practicing homosexuality]. Someone should ask him if he thinks Paul’s “vilification” of homosexuality constitutes a “considerable offense.” – Laurie Higgins

__________________________

By Laurie Higgins, for Americans For Truth

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has written a self-serving and exploitative analysis of Letter # 7 in C.S. Lewis’ classic The Screwtape Letters, which Throckmorton correctly sees as a warning to Christians not to allow cultural issues to supplant the central message of the Gospel.

The problem is that Throckmorton uses Lewis’ prescient warning to chastise only those Christians who work tirelessly to counter the spate of lies spewed by the culture on the topic of homosexuality, lies which even our public schools have been recruited to disseminate.

Throckmorton writes as follows:

Screwtape encourages his apprentice to foster devotion to a cause. This then takes him further away from the real encounter with God and the faith relationship. Indeed, if Wormwood’s human “patient” can put movements and organizations and crusading ahead of all else then he is of no real threat to Screwtape.

I think this passage provides caution to those who believe fighting the culture war is Christian ministry. When fighting the culture war becomes more important than a witness to the gospel, then the mischief really begins. Specifically, in the past several years, I have seen people who are so concerned with the “gay agenda” that they overlook cult involvement in people because they are “ex-gay.” Some here in the US who are willing to tolerate the very unChristian stance of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill because, in Lou Engle’s words, ”Uganda has become ground zero” in the fight against the gay agenda.…

Some might argue that I am just as guilty because of my advocacy against the Uganda bill. And I would not take that criticism lightly. My view is that freedom of conscience is necessary for the Church to have the greatest impact. Advocacy for that position is important business but it is not the main business. I doubt that such advocacy will lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church. On the other hand, my great concern is that culture warring lulls people into feeling that that the cause justifies the considerable offense that comes with vilifying those the church yearns to reach.

Dr. Throckmorton shrewdly pre-empts any challenge to his own complicity in the culture war, complicity which often seems to serve efforts to normalize homosexuality. Throckmorton proleptically introduces the challenge and responds to it by claiming meaninglessly that he wouldn’t take such a charge “lightly.” He attempts to efface the charge that he himself may be guilty of making “the world an end.”

Dr. Throckmorton asserts that “freedom of conscience is necessary for the Church to have the greatest impact. Advocacy for that position is important business but it is not the main business.” Huh?

What precisely is Dr. Throckmorton concealing here through his ambiguous rhetoric? Is he advocating for freedom of conscience regarding the morality of homosexuality? If so, who disagrees? Certainly the mere expression of theologically orthodox views about homosexuality does not diminish anyone’s “freedom of conscience.” Those who affirm homosexuality are as free to reject theologically orthodox moral propositions as the theologically orthodox are free to reject heresy.

Since this ambiguous phrase follows a reference to the Ugandan law, perhaps he actually thinks that what most alarms his critics is his obsession with it. Perhaps he is trying to divert attention from his ambiguous stance on the morality of homosexuality to the controversial Ugandan law, his opposition to which he may be mistaking for “Christian ministry.”

If so, Dr. Throckmorton needs to know that what most concerns his critics is that he may be on a crusade not merely to affirm that individuals should have the freedom to believe as they wish, but that he may also be on a crusade to affirm that homosexual practice is permissible for Christians, which would constitute a decidedly non-orthodox theological position.

Dr. Throckmorton continues: ”I doubt that such advocacy will lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church.” In Dr. Throckmorton’s world, advocacy of “freedom of conscience” will not “lead anyone away from the redemptive business of the church,” but preaching the truth about homosexuality will.  Curiouser and curiouser.

It would be enormously helpful if Dr. Throckmorton would fight as tenaciously for the freedom and right of parents to protect their children from unbiblical ideas and images of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder in American public schools as he does to oppose laws in foreign countries.

Throckmorton further claims that “my great concern is that culture-warring lulls people into feeling that that the cause justifies the considerable offense that comes with vilifying those the church yearns to reach.”

There are a couple of points to be made in response to this stupefying statement.

• First, this statement implies that those who affirm homosexual acts as moral are not engaging in the culture war.
• Second, this statement employs the non-biblical, fallacious argument common among homosexualists that condemnation of volitional homosexual acts constitutes hatred or “vilification” of persons. One wonders how Dr. Throckmorton is able to expound any biblical truths regarding behavior if he believes that expressions of opprobrium constitute vilification of persons which, in turn, he believes impedes the redemptive business of the church.

Throckmorton asserts that proclamations of truth constitute a “considerable offense.” Someone should ask him if he thinks Paul’s “vilification” of homosexuality constitutes a “considerable offense.”

Does society’s “vilification” of pornography or pedophilia constitute a considerable offense against the porn-makers, porn-partakers, or pedophiles that the church hopes to reach?

Did Martin Luther King Jr.’s “culture-warring” against racism constitute a “vilification” and “considerable offense” against the racists that the he hoped to reach?  Did MLK Jr. mistakenly believe that fighting the “culture war” was a Christian ministry?

Of course, anyone who supplants the Gospel with philanthropic or political efforts is in error, but Throckmorton seems to suggest that those who oppose the homosexual agenda are somehow guiltier of this error than those who seek to normalize homosexuality.

The reality is that there are people whose work–their vocation–is to promote truth in the culture and to oppose the cultural and legal promotion of moral error. Some people are accountants, some veterinarians, some plumbers, some sales clerks, and some are “activists.” The fact that some men and women are called to activism for their vocation no more means they have lost sight of the most essential truth, which is the Gospel, than the fact that some are called to work as architects means that they’ve lost sight of the most essential fact of human existence: the Good News of Christ’s substitutionary work on the Cross.

In my estimation, there are far too few Christians who are willing to speak the truth in the public square. At different times in history, different biblical truths are attacked with particular ferocity. During the era of slavery and Jim Crow laws, biblical truth about the dignity and worth of African American women and men were attacked with special intensity. During those decades, an equally vigorous public response to the cultural lies that destroyed lives and families was necessary. Unfortunately, for far too many years, the white church failed to respond courageously.

Similarly, the church is failing now to respond with courage and vigor to the assault on  biblical truth about sexuality, marriage, and the family from the mainstream news media, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, the music industry, and public education. Throckmorton is right when he warns against mistaking bold proclamations about biblical morality for preaching the Gospel. He is wrong in trying to persuade Christians to remain silent in the face of perilous cultural lies.

________________________________

Laurie Higgins is a writer and analyst for the Illinois Family Institute. To listen to the AFTAH Hour’s recent radio interview with Higgins, go HERE for Part One, and HERE for Part Two.

“How can a Christian even in the service of mental or psychological consonance be open to a client assuming a same-sex identity when this therapist knows that consonance comes at the cost of his or her client’s eternal life?” — Laurie Higgins

Mark Yarhouse, Professor of Psychology, Regent University

Folks, it’s a heckuva long road from “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22) to “gay” (no Scriptural citation possible). Note the critical difference between acknowledging in a free society that people have the free will to make bad choices (i.e., embrace sin) — and respecting the sinful choices of such individuals as a “valued identity.” Laurie Higgins is right: Mark Yarhouse’s (and Warren Throckmorton’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” puts Christian professionals in the dangerous position of doing the latter. Here is Yarhouse’s defense of SIT, “Understanding Sexual Identity Therapy.” And here is his and Throckmorton’s paper, “Sexual Identity Therapy: Practicing Guidelines for Managing Sexual Identity Conflicts.”

Also, we feel obligated to note that although we concur with Higgins regarding Yarhouse’s strained defense of SIT, we in no way put him in the same category as Throckmorton, the Grove City College professor and one-time pro-”change” advocate who has become a de facto pro-homosexual activist — talking down the possibility of lasting, ex-”gay” change for people caught up in homosexuality even as he disingenuously claims to adhere to biblical orthodoxy. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Higgins writes (article after jump):

_____________________________

Regent University Professor Mark Yarhouse’s Defense of Sexual Identity Therapy

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute, April 20, 2010

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT) Framework co-developed by Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton and Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse. This week, I’m going to take a stab at unpacking Dr. Yarhouse’s defense of the SIT Framework.

I will acknowledge the obvious from the get-go: I am not a trained mental health professional. I am an ordinary person trying to sift through what seems to me to be murky, abstract, intellectualized jargon that doesn’t quite conceal the anti-biblical ideas embedded in it.

I will also acknowledge that I’m critiquing these guidelines based on the assumptions that Drs. Throckmorton and Yarhouse hold orthodox theological views of homosexuality and that they believe that Christians are to submit their hearts, minds, and wills to Christ. I assume they believe that the Christian walk is not a hobby practiced in the evenings and on the weekends, and that we owe God both our leisure time and our professional lives. And further, I assume they believe it would be a sin of the gravest order to affirm in or to others that which God–whom they believe is an objective, transcendent, eternal reality–deems abominable.

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s SIT Framework states the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with value conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations…some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options …. Clinicians should assist clients to clarify their values in order to determine their preferred course of action. Therapists should be open to the possibility that a same-sex identity is the least dissonant course.

For a secular therapist this approach would be understandable, but how can a Christian even in the service of mental or psychological consonance be open to a client assuming a same-sex identity when this therapist knows that consonance comes at the cost of his or her client’s eternal life? Is temporal dissonance a more serious problem than eternal damnation? Is it compassionate to facilitate the appropriation of the “least dissonant course” when that course is one which God hates? And can a follower of Christ be complicit in any way of facilitating the pursuit of such a course?

It strikes me that the life of all Christians is a life of dissonance. Our temporal lives are necessarily characterized by a dissonance between our fallen, depraved natures and our new natures that are being sanctified through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:22-24 tells us that “You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s image–in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.” Isn’t the term “dissonance” as used in the SIT Framework merely secularized jargon to describe the painful struggle all humans experience in trying to oppose our sin natures while living for Christ?

Believers, including those who are mental health professionals, owe our very lives to Christ, including our professional lives. We owe those who struggle with seemingly intractable, persistent sin–which is all of us–comfort, support, prayer, fellowship, and wise counsel that reflects truth, for it is only the truth of Christ that can set people free from bondage to sin. Those Christians who counsel men and women who suffer from unbidden same-sex attraction have no right or authority as Christians to “provide therapy recommendations” that “respect” the “option” of modifying religious beliefs in such a way to make possible “the integration of same-sex eroticism within a valued identity.”

The SIT Framework also states that “in sexual identity therapy, the focus is on sexual identity as a construct that incorporates the person’s assessment of sexual orientation, emotional preferences and inclinations to engage in sexual activities.”

SIT states that “We believe that the therapist should not attempt to persuade clients about how to value these dimensions but can assist clients to determine their own valuations.” How can a Christian, who is a Christian first, “assist” clients in determining that they “value” homosexual practice. If the professional standards dictate that therapists may not attempt to persuade clients how to “value” their same-sex attractions, then I would argue that Christian therapists ought to choose not to counsel clients who find little or nothing morally problematic with acting on same-sex impulses.

Let’s imagine that age of consent laws are someday overturned. And imagine a client experiences pedophiliac impulses. Or, imagine a client who experiences zoophilia, that is, a sexual attraction to animals. Could a serious follower of Christ be part of any process that results in a client determining that they value and will integrate pedophilia or zoophilia into their lives?

Clearly, those clients who enter therapy with some kind of dissonance between their same-sex attraction and their faith hold at least somewhat to orthodox Christian beliefs. Are temporal subjective feelings so superordinate that facilitating heresy in a client is justified? And to a Christian therapist, is the biblical position that homosexuality is anathema to God a “value,” or is it objective truth?

Dr. Yarhouse explains the different conceptions of mental health practitioners:

Some people will assume that Christians in the mental health field should function like they are a particular kind of pastoral care provider. Although there are many ways in which pastoral care providers practice, I see pastoral care providers as representing their faith tradition in a very intentional way. They hold up a standard and provide pastoral care to help people move toward that standard of orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice)…. Others would view licensed mental health professionals as different than (sic) pastoral care providers in some important ways. They would see a licensed Christian psychologist, for example, as entering enter (sic) into a fiduciary relationship with the public, a relationship built upon trust, and part of that trust is built upon the assumption that the services provided are in keeping with the standards in the field as it is currently governed by the state in which the psychologist practices. So a group of one’s peers (psychologists, in this case, not Christian psychologists necessarily) would reflect on what is standard practice for addressing the topic of homosexuality in clinical practice.

Dr. Yarhouse employs some strained rhetoric in the phrase “Others would view” rather than saying “In contrast, Dr. Throckmorton and I provide services in keeping with the standards in the field as it is currently governed by the state.” Making such a direct first-person claim would reveal the troubling compartmentalization of their faith, the kind of schism about which Nancy Pearcey and Chuck Colson write:

[H]aving a Christian worldview…means following biblical principles in the personal and practical spheres of life….What does this mean in practice?… It means we do what is right even at great cost, because we are convinced that what we gain in the unseen realm is far greater than what we lose from a worldly perspective.

Sadly, many Christians….give cognitive assent to the great truths of Scripture, but they make their practical, day-to-day decisions based only on what they can see, hear, measure, calculate….They may sincerely want to do the Lord’s work, but they do it in the world’s way-using worldly methods.

Dr. Yarhouse’s rhetoric brings to mind the words of Martin Luther King Jr. in “Letter From Birmingham Jail” who was lamenting the failure of church leaders to boldly condemn the evil of racism:

In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities…. And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular. (emphasis added)

Christian counselors may be prohibited from “imposing” their values or even offering direction to their clients, but surely they enjoy the freedom to direct a client to another therapist rather than becoming complicit in facilitating the integration of same-sex eroticism into the “valued identity” of a client–or to put it another way, of facilitating heresy and behavior that if left unrepented of will lead to eternal separation from God.

I have heard people offer specious analogies to other professions, for example, suggesting that counseling someone who experiences same-sex attraction is analogous to a tax accountant accepting a client who is an adulterer. The analogy fails because tax return preparation is wholly separate from the moral issue of adultery, whereas when a therapist counsels someone on their experience of dissonance between their faith and their same-sex impulses, the moral issue is the entire purpose for their professional relationship.

I’m not arguing that Christian therapists must refuse to treat those struggling with conflicts between faith and sexual impulses. I am arguing that Christians are biblically prohibited from participating in any process that involves facilitating the modification of religious beliefs–that is to say, heresy–in such a way that same-sex eroticism can be integrated into a “valued identity.”

If what Drs. Yarhouse and Throckmorton mean when they say that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity,” is that therapists have to accept the unfortunate reality that by the end of therapy some clients will choose to pursue lifestyles that include the appropriation of wrong beliefs and destructive sin, their statement would be reasonable even coming from a Christian.

But their assertion that they “seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect the option of modifying religious beliefs to allow integration of same-sex eroticism” suggests a positive regard for an end result that no Christian should hold in positive regard. It suggests a willingness to facilitate the appropriation of wrong beliefs and destructive sin. Such a response is neither biblically defensible nor loving.

It could be cowardice, ignorance, pride, or vanity that causes a Christian counselor to affirm the ideas affirmed in the SIT Framework. But it could be the result of a serious lack of imagination. Imagine that you are a Christian counselor and with your assistance a client decides to modify his religious views in such a way as to accommodate sin that you know with absolute certainty will shortly result in unimaginable suffering–suffering worse than any torture you’ve ever read about in history books. Now imagine saying about this decision “I seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect this option.” Such a response should be inconceivable.

Ironically, Grove City Prof. Warren Throckmorton -- creator of the 2004 video "I Do Exist," about ex-"gays" -- now questions whether many former homosexuals who have experienced "durable change" in their basic attractions actually "do exist." Writes Throckmorton: "It is not appropriate to see the film as a testament to change of sexual orientation."

The following is reprinted with permission from LifeSiteNews, a leading pro-life and pro-family news service: [To subscribe to their daily news feed, go HERE]

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, March 22, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com

GROVE CITY, PENNSYLVANIA, March 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) — A psychologist teaching at the conservative-Evangelical Grove City College has been making waves by endorsing same-sex civil union legislation, and claiming that homosexuals can live “normal, natural and healthy” lives.

In a recent interview with the Evangelical news service OneNewsNow (ONN), Dr. Warren Throckmorton reportedly said that “he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions,” according to the news agency.

“Throckmorton says he personally holds a ‘traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics.’ However, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is ‘normal, natural and healthy,’ he said he could not answer that with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response,” ONN reported.

“He said ‘in a professional therapy situation’ it is accurate to say that ‘homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness,’” added ONN.

Although Throckmorton has been known in the past as a defender of the ex-gay movement and reorientation therapy, he has been distancing himself increasingly from those positions in recent years, and has even rejected the “Day of Truth,” in which high school students seek to inform their peers about the immorality of homosexual behavior, calling it “mischief,” and saying that it “builds more walls than bridges.”

Throckmorton’s defection from the ex-gay movement has been met with condemnation by Evangelicals. “Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as ‘authentically Christian,’ Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s ‘Sexual Identity’ according to their feelings (and comfort level with same),” laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).

“Hold on…. This is wholly against Scripture: there is nothing in the Bible or the long history of Judeo-Christian tradition that even hints at ascribing a morally-neutral or worse — a ‘valued identity’ — to sexual sin,” he adds.

Helping patients to form a gay “identity”

LaBarbera is referring to Throckmorton’s “Sexual Identity Therapy,” a framework for therapists treating patients who are conflicted about their sexual desires.

Published in 2007 by Throckmorton and fellow psychologist Mark A. Yarhouse [of Regent University], “Sexual Identity Therapy” affirms that the therapist should accept the values of the client, and then help the client to create a “sexual identity” that fits those values — including a “gay” identity, if it is in accordance with the client’s value system.

“Sexuality and moral values and attitudes are important aspects of personality. However, clients value each of these functions in different ways. We believe that the therapist should not attempt to persuade clients about how to value these dimensions but can assist clients to determine their own valuations,” write Throckmorton and Yarhouse.

They later add that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious identity is the preferred organizing principle for them, even if it means choosing to live with sexual feelings they do not value. Conversely, some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.”

Dr. Throckmorton’s Strange About-Face

In recent years, Throckmorton has done an about-face with regard to his position on homosexual reorientation therapy. Abandoning his previous stance of defending ex-homosexuals and reorientation therapy, he has begun to express skepticism that homosexuals can change in most cases. He has also begun to backpedal on his previous emphasis on the evidence in favor of environmental causes for homosexual orientation, instead asserting biological factors as an explanation for the phenomenon.

The “cause [of homosexual orientation] is a scientific mystery,” he wrote in a recent article for Britain’s Independent newspaper. “However, we do know that once established sexual orientation seems to be quite durable. Several studies have found brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.”

“While it seems unlikely that there is one biological or genetic cause for all homosexuals, there are data which suggest that genetic and hormonal factors during pre-natal development have some impact on our desires, in different ways for different people,” he added.

Throckmorton’s previous defense of the ex-gay movement even led him in 2004 to create a documentary, “I Do Exist,” allowing former homosexuals to give their testimony regarding their transformations. However, Throckmorton is now repudiating the film, using vague references to “changes” that has says have taken place since he produced it.

In a Frequently Asked Questions posting on his website about the documentary, Throckmorton writes that “the stories of the people involved were freely offered and reflected their experience at that time. Since then, more changes have taken place. It is not appropriate to see the film as a testament to change of sexual orientation. Rather, the video has a place in the history of the ex-gay movement and may be of interest to those who study that movement.”

“I believe it is important for me to say that I Do Exist is not a current depiction of what I believe to be accurate about sexual orientation,” he concludes.

In addition, Throckmorton has broken off his formerly friendly relationship with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which supports psychologists who offer sexual reorientation therapy to homosexuals.

Although he once cited studies by NARTH psychologists in his own writings, participated in conferences, and even accepted the organization’s Sigmund Freud Award, Throckmorton now regularly writes blog entries attacking the organization, after having canceled his last scheduled appearance at a 2006 NARTH conference.

Under fire from fellow Evangelicals

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality has been denouncing Throckmorton’s new “Sexual Identity Framework” on his website.

“Folks, I had to laugh the other day when heretical Grove City College Assistant Prof Warren Throckmorton accused pro-family groups advocating a walkout on the nationwide, pro-homosexual ‘Day of Silence’ with ‘mischief.’ You see, ‘Mischief’ is Throckmorton’s middle name,” wrote LaBarbera in a recent post.

“Throckmorton’s and Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse’s ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’ model grants the possibility that some clients may come to embrace a positive ‘gay identity’ that ‘modifies’ their religious beliefs in such a way as to ‘allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity,’” wrote LaBarbera.

“Would you want your child counseled at Grove City College?” he asks readers. “How can an evangelical Christian college like Grove City that claims to follow the Bible affirm a ‘gay’ ‘sexual identity’ that values ‘same-sex eroticism’ — especially for a person struggling in his conscience against homosexuality?”

Former homosexual Michael Glatze, who once published the national magazine Young Gay America and now speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle, is condemning Throckmorton for his permissive stance towards homosexuality, and for distorting his own statements.

“He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality ‘might be OK for some people.’ Of course, this false gospel will seem preferable for many because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But that does not make it right.”

“I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek ‘my side’ of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth,” writes Glatze.

Throckmorton has responded to LaBarbera’s criticisms by claiming that the American Psychological Association’s guidelines require him to take a neutral stand with regard to the sexual morality of the client. However, the texts he cites by the APA do not mention sexual morality, and do not prohibit value judgments by the therapists, only prohibiting the imposition of values that are not directly related to the therapy.

After agreeing to an email interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Throckmorton refused to answer the questions submitted, claiming they were “slanted.” The questions sent to Dr. Throckmorton, are available at this link [and are reprinted below]. His latest rebuttal to [AFTAH President] Peter LaBarbera can be found HERE.

Contact Information:

President Richard Jewell
Grove City College
724-458-2500
rgjewell@gcc.edu

Warren Throckmorton
Grove City College
ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu

Related Links (at bottom are additional AFTAH links):

Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice framework for managing sexual identity conflicts

______________________________________

Questions submitted to Dr. Warren Throckmorton by LifeSiteNews.com (for March 22, 2010 article; Throckmorton refused to answer the written questions, claiming they were “slanted”):

1. How have your views of human sexuality changed in the last few years?

2. In a previous article for LifeSiteNews.com, you defended the idea that homosexual orientation is caused by environmental factors.  Have you abandoned that idea?

3. In a recent article you defended the thesis that sexual orientation is biologically determined in the womb, by hormonal deficiencies.  Do you now believe that homosexual orientation is immutable?  [Note: Throckmorton's original statements only suggested that hormonal and other biological factors may influence homosexual orientation, and was therefore amended in a subsequent email.]

4. You now say that you think the equal protection clause gives homosexual couples the right to “civil union” status.  Can you clarify this position?

5. What is your opinion of sexual reorientation therapy now, and how has it changed?

You affirmed in your previous statement to LifeSiteNews (see below) that homosexuals can live “normal, healthy lives.”

6. Do you believe that sex acts between two men or two women are “normal and healthy”?

7. Do you believe that anal sex is normal and healthy?

8. Do you believe that oral sex is normal and healthy?

9. Do you believe that “sexual identity” is something that can be determined by the individual, or is it an objective fact about his nature?  Can a person adopt a “sexual identity” that is in conflict with his actual sex, and still be said to be rational and healthy?

10. Do you believe that moral principles in general are subjective, or are known only by one’s faith, or rather that they are based on human nature, and therefore objectively knowable by man?  If the latter is the case, why do you claim that the therapist is imposing his particular religion when he makes value judgments about human sexuality?

11. Do you believe that the Biblical prohibition against homosexual behavior is based on a mere decree of God, knowable only by faith, or that it is based on an objective harm, including a psychological and/or physical harm, that homosexual practices can cause?

12. Do you claim that the therapist cannot make value judgments in general about the actions of his client, or do you confine this neutrality only to sexual behavior? If the former is true, do you follow this position consistently, treating physical aggression against others in a value neutral way, criminal activity, etc, in your practice?  If the latter is true, on what basis do you confine this moral neutrality to sexual behavior alone?  If confined to sexual behavior alone, does it only apply to homosexual behavior, or does it also apply to bestiality and necrophilia for example?

13. Would you, for example, tell a client involved in bestiality that if his religion or worldview or value system permits bestiality or even condones it, that he can simply adjust his “sexual identity” to match his behavior? If not, why not, given the standard you have set for homosexual behavior?

14. Do you acknowledge that any political elements entered into the change of position of the APAs regarding homosexual sexual conduct and orientation?

15. Do you describe yourself as a heterosexual, a homosexual, or a bisexual?  Regardless of the category you attribute to yourself, do you experience same-sex attractions to a significant degree?

________________________________________

AFTAH Links:

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) [a general link to Americans For Truth was provided by LifeSite, but below we add some of our recent articles and letters on the Throckmorton/Grove City controversy:

Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’? – http://tinyurl.com/GCCauthentic

Grove City Prof Warren Throckmorton Affirms Homosexuality as ‘Normal, Natural and Healthy’: http://tinyurl.com/throck-normal-natural

Higgins Has Questions about Prof. Throckmorton’s ‘Nuanced’ Position on Homosexuality: http://tinyurl.com/higginsthrock

Letter: Grove City Student Should Have Learned that God Disapproves of Homosexuality: http://tinyurl.com/studentthrock

Grove City College Student Scolds AFTAH for ‘Misleading’ People that ‘God Disapproves of Homosexuality’: http://tinyurl.com/scoldsAFTAH

Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’: http://tinyurl.com/DOS-Throck

Virginia Parents Leery of Grove City College Due to ‘Prof. Throckmorton’s Open Advocacy of Homosexuality’: http://tinyurl.com/vathrock

Letter: ‘Warren Throckmorton Is Doing Great Damage to Reputation of Grove City College’: http://tinyurl.com/GCCdamage

From: Margaret Hemenway [mailto: ------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:17 PM
To: ‘rgjewell@gcc.edu‘ [Grove City College President Richard Jewell]
Subject: RE: Professor Throckmorton

Sir, as we begin to review materials mailed to us from colleges soliciting applications for admission from my bright and accomplished 16-year-old daughter, we regret that we are now leery of considering your campus, Grove City, after hearing about Professor Throckmorton’s open advocacy of homosexuality.  All three of our children are enrolled and flourishing academically in Catholic schools, and part of the reason we chose religious schooling is that we wanted them to avoid the inappropriate and misleading homosexual propaganda that our youngest experienced in first grade–in D.C. public school–when subjected to a “gay marriage” lesson plan without parental notification or approval and in contravention of our religious beliefs (and contrary to much lip service to the concept of “parental rights”).

We want our children to grow up to be healthy and happy–enjoying a wholesome college experience–not one which will undermine their years in a safe and nurturing Catholic educational environment.  It is remarkable that the College would permit this professor, given your school’s Biblical charter, to crusade on behalf of homosexuality–would you also allow your staff to advocate openly for adultery, pornography or prostitution–other sexual sins?  Where do you draw the line and how is the professor’s conduct and activity consistent with your Christian mission?  We would look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

The Hemenways
17 E. Maple St.
Alexandria, VA  22301

“I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek ‘my side’ of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth.”
– Former homosexual activist Michael Glatze

__________________________________________________

Once "gay" turned Christian Michael Glatze

Editor’s Note: in apparent anger over Americans For Truth’s campaign to expose renegade Grove City College associate professor Warren Throckmorton’s unscriptural approach toward homosexuality, Throckmorton is questioning the accuracy of a OneNewsNow story featuring comments by AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera — including LaBarbera’s assertion that Throckmorton actively seeks to discredit bold testimonies of profound change like that of ex-”gay” Christian Michael Glatze. Below, Michael explains why he no longer trusts Throckmorton and others who “pervert the truth.” Please say a prayer of thanks for this young man who God has drawn out of homosexuality, and that God will use him mightily to proclaim truth about homosexuality in the years and decades ahead. Please also pray for Throckmorton, who as a professed Christian at an evangelical institution should not be using his authority to affirm anyone in a “gay” sexual identity. You can write either man through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net:

__________________________________________________

The Truth about Warren Throckmorton

By Michael Glatze, Special to Americans For Truth

It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.

Those who seek to provide some kind of intellectual “nuance” to the Gospel will, inevitably, engage in the sin of Pride. The Gospel is quite clear; and, all information about it can be found within God’s Word. Furthermore, all truth — as revealed in God’s Word — will be seen to be true in human experience, as well. Homosexuality is one of those examples.

Six years ago, I began my Christian walk. At that time, I was considered a “rising star” in the “gay rights” movement, editor of a national gay magazine, and a sought-after authority on the subject of gay youth. But, as a new Christian, I began to discover that I simply could not ignore the truth of the Gospel, no matter how difficult it may have been for my habitual, sinful nature to handle those truths. It was not easy to read things that made me feel guilty, or uncomfortable. It was not easy to go before God’s throne in humble repentance. It is still not easy to do so.

However, every time I did that, I found myself blessed — and, I found that God gave me the grace I needed to move on, to grow up, and to grow out of sinful practices that had become quite ingrained in me. This, to those who are unfamiliar, is the blessed process of sanctification. I began to understand that God’s mercy is unfathomable, yet unceasing. I began to understand that I did not have a free ride from sin and temptation, once saved. I began to feel the distance from God, whenever I followed through with a sinful temptation, or acted on that sin — i.e., the spiritual death describe so aptly in the book of James, as following the fulfillment of a sinful action.

Homosexuality, like other sins, involves the temptation to do something that is — quite simply — not necessary. To disagree with God, to say that it is OK, is to sin. And, to confess your sin is to humble yourself enough to say to God, “You were right; I was wrong.” This is an ongoing process.

A great temptation among humans is to step in-between the sinner’s relationship with God, and offer a new way out. People do this in every walk of life. People step in and say, “I know God’s Word is difficult …  let me offer you an alternate way that won’t be so painful.” People do this with philosophies, with “support groups,” and with serious academic “discoveries.”

I have come across many folks, since I first came out as opposed to homosexuality, on a path through healing from homosexuality, standing on the platform of the Gospel to fight against falsehoods about homosexuality — encouraging Christians to not falter on the Gospel truth about homosexuality, and all other sins. It is not easy, nor is life — necessarily — always a walk in the park. But, we must recognize those folks who, momentarily, play Jesus, and put themselves — or, their philosophies, or the fruits of their labors — in Jesus’ place: as mediator between God and man.

Sadly, Warren Throckmorton has been one of those people. He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality “might be OK for some people.” Of course this false gospel will seem preferable for many, because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But, that does not make it right.

I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.

I write this now, as I recognize efforts are being made to describe his indiscretions, and — undoubtedly — a war of words will ensue. All people are redeemable; I am a profound example of that truth.

As I have said in other articles, homosexual sin is a very serious trojan horse that Satan will use — and, has used — to divide and conquer. I know, through the testimony of my own life, as a gay activist and practicing homosexual, who has been delivered from the lifestyle, from the desires, and from the whole mindset, that Gospel truth WILL prevail. But, Christians must be unafraid to tell the truth, stand for the truth, and hold those accountable who pervert the truth.

God Bless You all.

Michael Glatze

Editor’s Note: links have been added to the following letter sent by Steve Baldwin to Grove City College President Richard Jewell (Phone: 724-458-2500). For more contact information on GCC, go HERE.

From: “Steve Baldwin” [e-mail address withheld]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:35:55 -0800
To: <rgjewell@gcc.edu>
Subject: Message from Steve Baldwin

President Jewell:

Warren Throckmorton

We’ve met before when I was the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.  I’ve been following the controversy involving your professor, Warren Throckmorton, and I have to say, Throckmorton is doing great damage to the reputation of Grove City College.

It’s bad enough having a professor who actively declares that homosexuality is just fine if the person in question is happy with himself.  That is simply not biblical and you know it.  It like saying alcoholics are fine the way they are as long as they’re happy with themselves.

But what’s worse is that he seems to have poisoned the minds of many of your students.  The email message below is from one of your students to Peter Labarbera [of Americans For Truth] and it just made me sick to my stomach:

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.Thanks for your time,

David Bier, Grove City College Senior

This student is saying that God does NOT disapprove of homosexual behavior and he implies that the entire student body is in agreement with this heresy.  Since this has gone on for some time now, I would like to know if this is the official view of Grove City College.  I’m in contact with hundreds of conservative high school students and many often ask me for my recommendations as to what colleges to attend.  If this view of homosexuality is now the official view of the Grove City College, I need to know, as I will no longer be recommending Grove City College.

I look forward to your answer.

Steve Baldwin

__________________________________________

The writer (left) is the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist. He and his wife Patti and their four sons live in Santee, California, outside of San Diego. You can write Baldwin through americansfortruth@comcast.net.

_____________________________________

From:  “Bier, David J.” [GCC e-mail address]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:43:31 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: Article on Warren Throckmorton

Dear Americans For Truth,

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.

Thanks for your time,

-David Bier, Grove City College Senior

______________________________________

Related Americans For Truth articles:

• “Is Grove City College Still ‘Authentically Christian’ if It Abides Pro-’Gay’ Professor Warren Throckmorton and his ‘Sexual Identity Therapy’?”
• “Grove City College Prof Throckmorton Misapplies the Golden Rule on the ‘Day of Silence’”

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’  ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.’”

It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.

The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family.  Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.

I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’s wayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case)  “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH article: “Prop 8 Trial Judge is Homosexual (‘Gay’) — and It Shows: NRO”

_________________________________

OneNewsNow reported:

ONE NEWS NOW, May 29, 2009

Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?

by Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”

(See original Greg Sargent report: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-right-group-we-wont-oppose-gay-scotus-pick/) [Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”]

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that “even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and…there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

“In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle,” Sprigg concludes. “So don’t hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ‘support’ a ‘gay’ judicial nominee.”

“I probably will get hate mail for saying this but this type of hookup culture is common in the homosexual world. Another guy in NY who did the same thing was murdered. And yes heterosexuals do it to, but no matter what type of sexual proclivity it is, SIN leads to death. The best course of action is to get out of the deadly sin business and live for Christ.“
–DL Foster, former homosexual and publisher of Gay Christian Movement Watch, commenting on the murder of homosexual New York City newsman George Weber.

DL Foster, founder of Gay Christian Movement Watch, and
the beautiful family that his former life of homosexuality could not have produced.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, I heartily recommend that you become regular readers of DL Foster’s important blog, Gay Christian Movement Watch, analyzing and monitoring the so-called “gay christian” movement. DL gets attacked often by loving and tolerant homosexual activists because he tells it like it is. Go there often, tell all your friends about it, and take a stand for truth with DL against those who would pervert the Gospel of Christ.

(Speaking of which, renegade Christian and Grove City College prof Warren Throckmorton now seems to be on a crusade against pro-family veteran Scott Lively — joined by Warren’s homosexuality-promoting buddies, of course. We think Warren ought to deal with that heretical log in his own eye –  Throckmorton agreed in a 2007 interview with “gay” activist Mike Signorile that “being gay” is “normal, natural and healthy” — before picking at the speck in Scott’s.)

But I digress. Below Foster comments on the sad irony that less than a year before his death, George Weber — who was murdered by a 16-year-old boy he hooked up with for sex — complained about evangelical Christians witnessing at an airport. “Jesus freaks,” he called them. DL is right: many of America’s problems can be traced to the fact that there is so little fear of God in this nation. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).

Who can doubt that if Weber had stopped and listened to those “Jesus freaks” in the airport and allowed the Gospel of grace to penetrate his heart and change his life, he likely would have escaped putting himself in the dangerous circumstances that exposed him to a sadomasochistic, teenage, sex-crazed murderer. Go to “A Tragic and Ironic End” on the on the GCM Watch site to read the whole entry:

Little did the gay man [George Weber] who wrote that tragically ironic blogpost March 30, 2008 know that his soul would be required of him less than a year later.  George Weber, an ABC News broadcaster in New York was stabbed to death March 22, 2009, by a 16 year old boy he picked up for sex. The report said Weber routinely picked up men for sex from Craigslist. [source]

No one knows when their time to die will come. If you are reading this and you have not given your life to Christ, don’t delay. Don’t turn a deaf ear and go on enjoying your sin. Don’t mock God or the people he sends to you to tell you time is winding up and your soul is at stake. The only payment you can receive from sin is death.  And when death comes and you are not in relationship with Christ, hell and eternal torment await you. That’s not to scare you, its just the unfettered truth.

Read HERE to read what another man who turned his former “gay” life around by accepting Christ says about the Weber murder.

By Peter LaBarbera 

With polls showing more evangelicals — especially younger evangelicals — warming to the idea of voting Democratic (despite the party’s rigid pro-abortion-on-demand and pro-homosexuality agendas), we found this item of interest: this coming Tuesday, Wheaton College will be hostng liberal evangelical advocate Jim Wallis as a featured speaker at the college’s Center for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE). See the CACE announcement here: www.wheaton.edu/news/events/events_07_08/02.19.08_CaceWallis.html

This follows on CACE last September inviting homosexual “gay christian” activist Harry Knox to speak at a panel discussion on “HIV and Morality,” as a representative of the (traditional-Christian-bashing) homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign. You may recall that it was Knox who, in a TV debate with CWA’s Matt Barber (watch it HERE), called his homosexuality an “unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.” (We insensitive Bible-thumpers at AFTAH called that “Satan’s Talking Points.”)

If I’m not mistaken, Harry talked about his relationship with his male partner at the Wheaton panel discussion, which was titled, “Thy Kingdom Come: Christian Moral Engagement in the World.” I don’t believe there was much if any critical “engagement” of Knox when he brought up his homosexual relationship. What a pity. (You can listen to the discussion by going HERE and clicking on the “HIV and Morality Panel” links; there is Part One and Part Two.)

I’m reading Wallis’ new book, “The Great Awakening” (introduction by pro-abortion-rights, pro-homosexuality Jimmy Carter), and I’m not quite sure how Wallis can square his own ”applied Christian ethics” with the inspired and authoritative Word of God, which is hardly nuanced on the sin of homosexual behavior. Of course, Wallis, as a leading light of the Religious Left, has plenty of his own criticisms of us on the “Religious Right.”

It would seem appropriate that Wheaton College — as one of the most respected and Biblically faithful Christian colleges in the United States– would at the very least allow equal time for an orthodox evangelical spokesman who is more in line with Christian conservatives on moral issues– perhaps even a stellar representative like Rev. Al Mohler, who surely will not be voting for the Democrats this November.
 
If my memory serves, Wallis (as a liberal) and his Sojourners Magazine once stood against the Left on homosexuality, but it appears that he has since buckled to worldly agendas and flipped – always a sad spectacle for a Christian leader. The liberals who routinely excoriate the likes of AFTAH would say that Mr. Wallis has “grown,” but is this the sort of maturation that honors a holy Creator? Our God does not quake in fear of the successes of the “gay” movement, nor does He tremble before the well-heeled pro-abortion lobby. Wallis would have more credibility on the need to see fighting poverty as a moral issue if he did not sell out God on the issue of sexual morality.

Men are weak and sinful, and we constantly stray from God’s righteous path. Our sources — mostly parents with kids at Wheaton — tell us that at the alma mater of Billy Graham, as we presume at all Christian colleges, there is a battle over adherence to Scripture, with some professors less committed to the inerrancy and divine authority of the Bible than others.

The quotation below from Wallis’ book has little basis in Scripture: how could enabling homosexual relationships — based on behavior God calls an “abomination” (see www.robgagnon.net) – be a “justice issue” for Bible-believing Christians? What’s next? Affirming multiple-partner relationships as a justice issue (you know, the ones based on “consensual love”)? It also appears that Wallis is going along with today’s open-ended, newfangled definition of “family.”  

The following excerpt (emphasis added) is taken from page 229 of “The Great Awakening” — after Wallis argues for more church-inspired action against no-fault divorce laws (we heartily agree with you on that, Jim!):

“I support civil rights laws for same-sex couples. That, for me, is a justice issue. Many Christians, and I include myself, prefer the solution of ‘civil unions’ from the state, and even spiritual ‘blessings’ for gay couples (from congregations prepared to offer them), rather than altering the church’s sacrament of marriage as between a man and a woman, but those differences should not be fundamentally divisive. Gay marriage should not be the primary battleground in the fight for the health and stability of marriage and family in our society. In a pluralistic democracy, we should support civil and human rights for all our citizens, regardless of our different theological and biblical interpretations of the complicated and thorny issues surrounding homosexuality. New evidence and understanding around those issues could cause any of us to alter our views. But we should find common ground by supporting concrete practices and practical policies that strengthen families and nurture all our children.”

____________________________________
 
Here is the Wheaton College announcement:

http://www.wheaton.edu/news/events/events_07_08/02.19.08_CaceWallis.html

February 19, 2008

Political Lecture: Jim Wallis
Wheaton College’s Center for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) and the Department of Politics and International Relations and Urban Studies welcomes Jim Wallis to campus Tuesday, February 19. Wallis is on tour for his new book The Great Awakening.

Wallis is a bestselling author, public theologian, preacher, speaker, activist, and international commentator on ethics and public life. His last book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It (HarperCollins, 2005), was on The New York Times bestseller list for four months. He is president and executive director of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, where he is editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine. Jim Wallis speaks at more than 200 events each year and his columns have appeared in major newspapers such The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe, among others.

Free and open to the public, the lecture will take place at 7:30 p.m. in the Kresge Room, located in the east wing of the Edman Memorial Chapel at Washington and Franklin streets in Wheaton (campus map). For more information, call the CACE office at 630.752.5886, e-mail cace@wheaton.edu or visit: http://www.wheaton.edu/news/events/events_07_08/02.19.08_CaceWallis.html