...I am concerned that the Administration and Board may have made too many concessions to an “LGBTQ” agenda, presumably under duress and some wishful thinking. They are therefore in need of our support and prayer. These concessions include the following:
(1) Deferential recognition of advocates of sexual heresy at Gordon. ...Why are proponents of homosexuality being given such legitimacy? Has the train already left the station?
(2) Destigmatizing “being LGBTQ.” Gordon's website highlights as “perhaps the greatest accomplishment over the last nine months . . . the decreased stigma on the Gordon campus associated with being LGBTQ . . .We are also committed to determining how to maintain this decreased stigma during future periods.”
As the Athenian stranger notes in Plato’s Laws (838A-C), stigmatizing sexually immoral conduct is a vital means of dissuading a community from acting on impure sexual desires. What’s next? Destigmatizing desires for adult-committed forms of polyamory and incest?...The stigma ought to be great because homosexual practice is a particularly severe violation of the very foundation of creation, “male and female he [God] made them.”
(3) Establishment of platforms for self-identified “LGBTQ” students. The administration at Gordon has implemented a series of measures that have elsewhere been used to enshrine affirmation of homosexual acts. These measures, designed to address “concerns of LGBTQ students” and “issues of diversity and sexuality,” include mandatory sensitivity “trainings,” official “support groups,” “weekly student-led campus dinners,” “focus weeks organized around sexuality,” “more curricular offerings where LGBTQ matters are explored,” “protocols for handling when a student comes out as gay on campus,” and “an expanded anti-bullying policy with stronger disciplinary sanctions for bullying.”
Let us not be naïve here. The usual effect (if not purpose) of such measures is to inhibit vigorous critique of homosexual practice. They generally replace calls to repentance (now deemed insensitive at best, bullying at worst) with “dialogue” until such time as the new view can enforce intolerance. A steady stream of personal “LGBTQ” storytelling of loneliness, of inability to change, and of discrimination and bullying at the hands of “homophobic” Christians (often with analogies to racism) builds empathy for homosexual relationships...
If the practice of the Working Group is a model for what is to come, we can expect more invitations to speakers whose sole purpose will be to undermine the College’s sexuality standard. The only biblical scholars, theologians, or ethicists published on the Bible and homosexuality whom the Working Group invited on campus were two professors who are strong supporters of homosexual unions: New Testament scholar James Brownson on February 10 (albeit in a discussion with orthodox Gordon Old Testament professor Elaine Philips) and ethicist David Gushee on March 23...
I would also like to think that some of the online descriptions of the changes at Gordon are ambiguously worded in order to avoid the ire of the NEASC. However, the danger is that advocates of homosexual acts are skilled at using vague language and loopholes to advance their agenda against orthodox interests. They now also have a “big brother” to whom they may appeal.