AIG: Bible College Does/Does Not Approve Gays

We usually avoid writing about this subject, but it seems to be an obsession with Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Other than promoting his creationist tourist attractions, it seems to be his favorite topic.

Hambo just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Christian University to Not Allow Same-Sex Relationships Between Students. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Azusa Pacific University [a bible college in California] had recently announced in the student-run campus newspaper that the restriction on same-sex relationships between students was being lifted [Gasp!], effective immediately (at the start of the Fall semester). Bill Fiala, Ph.D., Associate Dean of Students made a few statements for the paper regarding the decision, including this eyebrow-raising one:

[He quotes the eyebrow-raising comment:] The change that happened with the code of conduct is still in alignment with our identity as a Christian institution. The language changed, but the spirit didn’t. Our spirit is still a conservative, evangelical perspective on human sexuality.

Hambo is horrified! He says:

So I have to ask, what does “Christian” and “evangelical” mean? To allow for same-sex relationships is to condone a behavior the Bible calls sin! All sex outside of biblical marriage is sin! [Oh no!] So if a Christian Institution allows for same-sex relationships and calls itself “Christian” and “evangelical,” one can no longer assume these terms mean what they used to!

You can easily understand Hambo’s rage. He tells us:

According to the campus newspaper, the two main things that influenced this decision were some anti-LGBTQ slurs targeting an APU faculty member and the complaint by some students that the code of conduct unfairly targeted LGBTQ people. Now insulting and demeaning people is not an acceptable way for Christians to behave [Hambo would never do that!], but I find it amazing that one such incident can be so inflammatory, when Christians are often called “haters,” “homophobes,” “transphobes,” etc. simply because they believe the Bible’s definition of marriage and sexuality.

Yeah, they should be able to shrug off criticism. Hambo seems to thrive on it. He continues:

Regarding the claimed “unfair” code of conduct by APU, the university’s statement on human sexuality (which is biblically based) states that any sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman (which is the true biblical definition [scripture references] is a sin against the body, which, for Christians, is the temple of the Holy Spirit [more scripture references]. So how was there any discrimination here?

Yeah, where’s the discrimination? Let’s read on:

You are either biblically (and legally) married as one man with one woman, celibate, or you are sinning. This statement convicts all except for those who adhere to biblical marriage or are single and celibate.

See? Hambo is a compassionate man and he doesn’t discriminate. Now the story takes a dramatic turn:

However, the story doesn’t end there. Just a few days ago, the APU Board of Trustees issued a new statement, denying that the Board had ever approved any change to the student code of conduct and that they were reaffirming their (and the university’s) stance on the biblical definition of marriage and sexuality.

Confusing, isn’t it? Here’s Hambo’s finish:

If the statement is a true, heartfelt expression of their belief and not simply pandering to pressure from their supporters, then this is good news! We need to hold the APU Board up to the Lord, as they stand against internal and external pressures on biblical marriage and sexuality issues.

That is very grudging approval. The school still needs to prove to Hambo that they are worthy of his respect. Everyone does, including you, dear reader.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “AIG: Bible College Does/Does Not Approve Gays

  1. Mark Germano

    This is as good a time as any to point out that Ken Ham isn’t just an anti-evolution creationist clown, but also a terrible human being, too boot.

  2. Michael Fugate

    “You are either biblically (and legally) married as one man with one woman, celibate, or you are sinning.”

    That means all those biblical patriarchs with multiple wives or wives and concubines were sinning, yet somehow they found favor with God – if one were to read the Bible literally. Can Ken read?

    Does any one know of a verse that says who can marry whom?

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    So much cognitive dissonance, flip flop flip flop. I always think of Huckleberry Finn who decided he’d rather die a sinner than do ‘the right thing’ and concede and turn in slave Jim.

  4. Dave Luckett

    To a certain extent, Ken has some ground he can hold here. Bear with me, if you please. Neither Ken nor anyone else can be reasonably required to approve of homosexuality, nor of any other behaviour that he considers immoral. I consider Ham’s behaviour immoral, after all, and am not restrained in saying so. Ken disapproves of me; I disapprove of him.

    Can an institution such as a University disapprove of its students’ behaviour? Obviously yes. Can it disapprove of their sexual behaviour? Obviously yes – and liberals are in the vanguard of disapproval of some sexual behaviours – and rightly so. So can a University disapprove of its students engaging in homosexual acts?

    I say yes, it can. But that’s as far as it goes. Homosexual acts, per se are not unlawful, and at least where I live, discrimination against any person on the grounds of sexual orientation is against the law. Neither individuals nor a body corporate can do so. Actual unlawful behaviour is another matter, of course. So while a Christian University might deplore, it can do no more.

    To that, I personally would add a further rider, one that I consider a conservative value: people should mind their own business. And also a Christian one: Matthew 7:4.

    Douglas Murray’s take on religious discrimination against his sexuality has always struck me as sensible. I paraphrase: “The Vatican isn’t going to approve gays nor gay marriage, but give me a break if I’m more concerned with people who want to throw me off a cliff.”

  5. Poor Hambo, standing on the wharf, watching the SS Not-Completely-Nuts cast off and pull away, shouting…”Stop, stop, I’m the Captain….Yes I am….Yes I am….”

  6. “needs to prove to Hambo that they are worthy of his respect”
    I’d only start to worry if I got it.

  7. So the head of one terminally backwards creationist organization claims that a different terminally backwards creationist organization is actually guilty of backsliding? How much farther backwards can either of these organizations go? Is the Earth now officially flat, or is that just the remaining space on the crumbling ledge that they are both standing on?

  8. Isn’t it about time somebody showed up with proof of Ken visiting the local whorehouse? That’s how these things typically roll… Jimmy Swaggert Ted Haggard….

  9. Kosh, let’s not deal in stuff that isn’t supported by evidence. This isn’t the Senate.

  10. Mark Germano

    “let’s not deal in stuff that isn’t supported by evidence.”

    Yeah, Kosh. That’s the President’s job. Duh.

  11. Michael Fugate

    Shouldn’t it be let’s not deal in stuff that isn’t on Fox?

  12. same-sex relationship != having sex.

  13. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    “when Christians are often called “haters,” “homophobes,” “transphobes,” etc. simply because they believe the Bible’s definition of marriage and sexuality.” When you are too much of coward to admit to being a bigot.

  14. Michael Fugate

    The Bible defines those things? Are they in the glossary at the back after Revelations?