Jeff- I think you got this one wrong. The biblical truth is that homo sexuality is a sin. And everybody has sin, that is in the Bible too. So Wheaton college is not judging homosexuals, they are just standing by what the Bible calls sin. And it is not a one liner like all these quotes you have used from Leviticus. Try looking into some new Testament verses that stand by the Old Testament law. I hope you can find the truth in that. Thanks.

Former NJ Senator Bill Bradley was an All-American at Princeton and a star NBA player for the New York Knicks. Your research appears as scientific as the poll.

Enjoy your comments and the titles are stunning.

The iPhone app Bible Thumper has hundreds of biblical admonishments that Wheaton College Christians conveniently ignore.

For a minute there I thought I must be reading the Elmhurst Press and thier columnist that regularly bashes Christians.

Isn't this the same college that banned the playing of Billy Joel's "Only the Good Die Young" anywhere on campus, back when it was on the charts?

But, if you truly know the Bible and intent of the scriptures you would understand that the Levitical laws were under the old covenant before Christ came.

The new covenant (new testament) with it's 'love your neighbor as your self' among other things is what governs our day-to-day lives today.

I for one am thankful that Wheaton College has taken a stand for Biblical truths.

I find it interesting that there is such discussion and fingerpointing at what is in the Bible by those who don't believe it's precious promises yet we don't see the same conversations about the Koran or other religious books that other faiths follow.

I am not a scholar, but in all fairness Jeff, to selectively pull out certain scriptures and use them to beat up Christianity does not offer the chance for a healthy conversation which is what Patch is all about.

We can earnestly disagree on the choice for the Bible to be the authority in our lives... and I will respect your choice.

But please respect mine, and don't publicly malign my chosen holy book.

Dear Debbie,

I'm not maligning the book, I'm maligning those Christians who pick and choose from that book. There's some pretty good stuff in the Bible.

That said, I'm curious how you've come to know the "true intent" of the Bible? Isn't that the sin of pride? And, by your own theory, since there's nothing in the New Testament that specifically forbids homosexuality, then Wheaton College really is off the mark aren't they!

Jeff

To single out Wheaton's stance on LGBT (Q?) as a means of trying to tear down Christians is, at best, a straw man argument. For one, if you think the Bible is all about what "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" do, you've either a) never read the Bible or b) you've missed the point completely.

In their defense, at least someone (Wheaton College collectively here) is standing up for SOMETHING. We live in a world where if someone has opinion that is counter-cultural, they are someone how "weird" or a fundamentalist. That's ridiculous, we all come from different backgrounds and beliefs and some are going be on one side of issue x and others are going to be on the other side. Why does one side have to be right and the other side gets bashed for their opinion?

Actually Jeff there are scriptures in the new testament that speak against homosexuality: I Corinthians 6:8-10 is one of them:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

And no, as I said, I am not a scholar, but having studied the Bible and lived by it's principals all of my adult life, and having attended church twice weekly for the last 30+ years and listened to teachings from pastors and teachers, my understanding of the Bible's intent is just what Wheaton College so graciously said in their statement:

“Our goal is to follow God’s truth, including what the Bible says about sexual ethics,” they said in a statement, “While some may interpret this stance as hostility to the LGBTQ community, our aim is to stand respectfully and graciously for biblical truth.”

I really don't want to argue Jeff. I respect your opinion and support your right to disagree with my views. I merely wanted to add to the conversation and point out that not everyone feels the way you do.

I see you removed my comment? Nice, way to foster "discussion".

Jeff, Another "politically correct," slanted article from your unseasoned pen... It's time for you to retire from Patch.

I always wondered how people use the bible to say homosexuality is a sin; but after watching "Fish out of Water" it was explained clearly to me. This little gem of a movie explains how the Bible has been misquoted and misinterpreted regarding same sex relationships. Thanks for this story Jeff!

I.e. Who is more intolerant, Jeff Ward or Wheaton College? I don't embrace much of Wheaton's philosophy but those who do have a right to hold it as long as they don't break civil rights laws.

William
While I do not choose to take a side on this discussion it is clear Jeff was writing an "opinion piece" which is by definition "slanted" towards his opinion. I personally am glad someone is willing to raise these issues and have found Jeff's rebuttals to be polite and well reasoned (whether or not correct) which is more than I can say for your comment.

I wrote an "opinion piece" also, but mine is not politically correct...

Jeff-

It seems you wrote this article just to rile up Christians. While I agree with you that people pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible (how about Matthew 19:24 where it says rich people go to hell? Yet we all still chase money), the fact that Wheaton College takes this stand shouldn't be a surprise.

Loved your take on this, Jeff!

Jeff, your marriage proposal made me laugh. Interestingly enough, I am a married Christian myself but I am troubled by many Christians convenient slip of the mind when it comes to John 8:7. In fact, citing this reference would make your argument vis-a-vis Wheaton College much more forceful.

Instead of arguing about the relative "truths"of the bible - you can point out that whether or not you believe in the "truths", you must acknowledge that Jesus CLEARLY stated that it is not our place to judge since we are all sinners. Therefore anyone who disagrees to the question... “Do you agree or disagree that students, faculty, and administrators treat all persons equally regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity/expression?” needs to assess whether they are in fact judging that person and therefore breaking one of the truths.

In my humble opinion. Given this passage - the truths of the bible apply to each Christian as individuals and the minute we start acting towards others in the material world we run the risk of being inconsistent and worse yet out of line with Jesus's teachings.

John,

True! But one step at a time! If I can get 'em to see beyond the literal word, (which I sadly doubt) then it becomes much harder for them to judge.

And your "rich man" interpretation works just fine in my book. The key thing is, neither one of us takes it literally, i.e. rich men don't automatically get bounced from the pearly gates!

Jeff

Looks like Jeff swings both ways when it comes to "judging" others. There is a reason you aren't reading his aggressive, liberal, politically correct calls for regulation of backyard, firepit marshmellow roasts or this ridicule piece of Wheaton College in the Chicago Tribune or even DG Reporter. The established press usually knows the difference between intelligent analysis and personal rants. The Patch might be wise to try harder to do the same.

Great article, Jeff. While I have no argument with those that follow the scriptures and get enjoyment out of them, I do have a rather large, heated argument with those that use those scriptures as a means to justify their opinions - and sometimes hatred - to anyone that is "different" from them. I don't think Jesus would be too keen on a certain group of people being ostrasized and condemned (not literally, I hope) because they had different life views. At one time, if you are even vaguely familiar with the bible, Jesus was judged and condemned for being one of those "different" individuals. Makes you think, doesn't it? The world would be such a better place if everyone - Christians and non-Christians alike - lived by the golden rules: Love thy neighbor as thyself and Do Unto Others as you would like done to you. Forget about memorizing all those scripture chapters, lines and verses.
Here's an idea for a future article/opinion page: What does organized religion bring to the world? In my opinion, it brings divisiveness, violence, and in extreme cases, war. Peace and love....peace and love. Take care.

Laura, you're hanging out with some odd "Christians" if they refuse to associate with people from the LGBT community...i would question whether they are really Christians or not. Jesus' message was love - not necessarily acceptance - but definitely love, of all people - regardless of their sins. Afterall, we're all sinners and yet God still loves us.

oops, sorry, meant Laraine, sorry!

Right or wrong, in this country Wheaton College still has the right to ask their students not to engage in sodomy, and hopefully, for all of us regardless of sexual orientation, those wishing to trample on that right will not prevail. If you don't like Wheaton's philosophy, apply to U. of Miami or wherever your views are more accepted. (Not sure Jeff could have gotten into Wheaton anyway.)

Adam, I do not hang with these people. I completely, 100% agree with Jesus' message of love. What I take issue with is when someone says "I love you BUT [I don't love the sin....]. Why the 'but?' I am not saying I am right, I am just voicing my opinion. The use of the word 'but' diminishes the meaning of the statement. Let's be honest, whenever you talk about something and a person says 'but,' you stop and wait for the rest, and not in a good way. {ie. I made it home from work, BUT I crashed the car.] I realize this whole discussion is an uphill battle, especially in today's world, but I know what I teach my children and hope that everyone I have an influence over can lead by example. Ignorance and prejudice always begins in the home and that is where it must be stopped. My 5-year old will NEVER hear any derrogatory statements made about others coming from this house. My 18 year old never did either and is repulsed when certain comments are made in school, as it should be. If the parents could put an end to the comments in the home, that would be a start. Sorry, Adam, I could go on and on and this article hit a nerve. Have a good day.

Well I do agree that labels seldom further a conversation in a positive direction, but if the suit fits, sometimes you end up wearing it. Yes, I have developed some strong negative opinons toward Jeff personally based on his opinions, but I assume he could care less since he enthusiastically engages in highly controversial public opinion journalism.

"Sure I'm having some fun with Christians....."
Do a column having "some fun" with Muslims.
That will be a real knee slapper.

A GBLT and religion column... We may break the "fire pits" comments record with this one.

The deeper problem, if one studies historical events, is the killing and wars, all in the name of religion! The Bible, Koran, etc. are, when all is said and done, a cultures revelations, regarding "God", or his "word, and as such, it is always the fanatical, literal interpretation's, of said books, that get the human race, into trouble! As Jesus said, "Treat your brother, as you would want to be treated"! Bottom line!! We would be so much further along in our spiritual evolution,if this was the case!!!

William R., I doubt you have a clue as to the nature of my "political agenda," especially since I don't think I generally have one. I pretty much hold the morality police at both ends of the political spectrum in equal disdain. People can believe whatever they want, but please be very hesitant to force your constructs for a "better civilization" on my life!!

Laraine, Excuse me, but isn't it a double standard to support Jeff's over-the-top attack on Wheaton College's sexual climate but then criticize me for bringing up U. of Miami's? Then again, hypocrisy is, unfortunately, pretty standard behavior for the morality police...

"I usually just hide in the crawl space". I'm loving your humor and your stirring up of the ole' hornets nest. Some folks just like getting bit.

Jeff,

Your logic in your opinion article and comment section is rather suspect. You are ostensibly taking Wheaton College to task for their interpretation of the bible and then arguing later that, essentially, the bible can be interpreted any way you want.

Your real complaint seems to be that you just don't like their interpretation.

But beyond that, you've made assumptions about the biblical basis of Wheaton College's interpretation by equating them to some amalgamation of what you assume fundamentalist Christians must believe. Perhaps you ought first to try and find out just what Wheaton College's interpretation is, before shooting down the straw men you've set up. But I imagine that would take a bit more effort than you are presumably inclined to make.

At the very least you could take a gander at Wheaton College's online honor code and accompanying websites. Based on what you've written here, you might be surprised at what you read about their (in your words) "stilted agenda". You'll also find that, contrary to your statement that the College is " not taking a stand against ALL sinful acts and that makes them hypocrites!" to be a bit in error, as well.

"Remember, I said name one NBA player - I didn't say there wasn't one!" Wow, a new high in backtracking on one's misinformation!

Bob,

You're gettin' way too complicated.

In their statement in response to the Princeton Review, Wheaton College cited a "biblical truth." What I'm saying is simple. If you follow one, then you have to follow them all - and the ones I used aren't ambiguous in the least.

The Bible is excruciatingly clear on menstruating women. If you're going to follow the Bible on homosexuality, then you have to follow it there too.

The fact that one can interpret Bible stories is secondary to that main point.

Jeff

Jeff, you're beginning to scare me. Either you're being much more clear in your use of sarcasm or (shiver) I'm getting more in tune with you!

The Princeton Review also named Wheaton College as one of the best overall Midwestern Universities with a # 1 rating for On Campus Food & a # 2 rating for sober students among many other top 10 rankings.

Jeff, your insistence about this point betrays a gross lack of understanding on your part related to what most Christians believe about the Bible and why. You're entitled to your opinion, but rather than standing your ground at this point you might try reading a couple of books on the subject. Or just call a professor over at Wheaton and ask a few honest questions.

It is their right to believe what they wish to believe. This is a free thinking country, no? If you don't like their opinion, ignore it. I for one am sick of hearing about pro or anti gay and lesbian issues.

Laraine, If you ever read the sports section or watch tv news, you would know why I specifically mention U. of Miami as an alternative for those like Jeff who find Wheaton's culture so disturbing. Secondly, I am pretty sure you are one of the few people who doesn't think this article is a highly critical atttack on Wheaton College culture/philosophy. Apparently the thousands of students hoping for the opportunity to pay over $30,000 per year to attend Wheaton College don't share that view. Finally, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote instead of just engaging in a knee jerk response to what you think I believe, you might recognize that I do not agree with most of what Wheaton College embraces, I never mentioned the Bible, and consider it to be no more or less profound than several other spiritual texts. If you really support the concept of freedom of thought and action within the laws of the land, I don't know how you can embrace Jeff's opinion piece which certainly does attack Wheaton College for practicing what it preaches. I agree with very little of what they say and do there, but Jeff's article is the opposite of liberal tolerance for freedom of thought. It is a disturbing, arrogant and unfunny piece of bad journalism.

Much easier that way...

OMG! Jeff, just as I was about to enter my counterpoint to yet another "William" response, I scrolled down ever so slightly and saw your note. And now I am done. Thank you for the heads up. Have a great weekend!!! [I don't know what I will do though, since I don't watch TV news (ie. Fox News Network) and participate in sports. No clue.] Assumptions.......

Laraine,

Glad I could help!

Jeff

Jeff, my comment about thinking I was reading the Press was a joke. Your style of writing reminds me of the columnist there that turned this local news junkie from a subscriber who looked forward to reading the paper on Fridays to a non subscriber who rarely ever reads the Press. I don't understand the business rational of featuring writers that regularly "have fun" at the expense of a significant portion of those that read thier newspaper. Considering the large population of Christians in the Chicago area it might be nice to read a positive story or two. Who knows it might even be good business to validate some of the positive things those that read your paper are doing.

Just curious...has anyone's opinion about homosexuality, Jesus, or fire-pits ever been influenced by an op-ed or a discussion forum? I've never figured out how to change anyone's mind about such things. I've come to the point where I just sigh deeply, shake my head, and keep quite. Shh, be quiet Cathy...

Dan,

My job is to point out inconsistency. There are columnists that take the positive route and that's fine too. As in the case of Tefft Middle School, I do write positive columns every now and then, but even that one pointed out that money isn't always the measure of a good education.

Yes, I have fun with folks who take themselves too seriously. But I'm at the top of the list. Do you really think I hide in my crawl space once a month, swear at my parents or am terrified by my own bedroom? I spare no one - not even myself!

The press has a very important job to do. But too often, folks who purport to be watchdogs are just idealogues in disguise. I promise I will never fall prey to that. I also promise I will not change my style for any reader.

I love my readers - without them I wouldn't be writing - but I don't read folks like Charles Krauthammer or Cal Thomas because they add nothing to the debate. My best advice to you would be, if you think I fall into that category, then don't click on the link!

Jeff

Jeff,
You have a lifetime of work ahead of you. Aren't we all filled with inconsistencies?
As a reader and consumer of local news my job is to provide feedback on the type and tone of stories I would like to see.
I would like to read an occasional story that portrays Christians in a positive way that more acurately represents my experiences.

Hi Jeff, Here's what I understand. There is Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law. Here's is why much of Leviticus doesn't pertain to us today. We're not citizens of a Jewish State & there's no Sanhedrin Council to enforce these civil laws found in the bible. i.e. cut off lady's hand for messing with testicles. There's no temple, therefore, no reason to keep ceremonial laws concerning how to approach the temple. Your Linen Lev 19:19 jab sort of falls under this category. Linen is a special material w/ rich symbolic meaning in the O.T. Garments made w/ linen were used primarily in the worship of Yahweh. Tabernacle curtains . (Ex 26:1, Ex 27:9) The Temple Veil (2 Chron.3:14) The Priest's garments(Lev.16, 1 Sam.22:18, Eze 44:17-19) The temple singers wore linen. (2 Chron 5:12) The prophet Samuel and king David wore linen ephods on special occasions. (1 Sam.2:18, 2 Sam. 6:14) Heavenly messengers wore linen. (Eze.9:2, Daniel 10:5) The Saviour's body was wrapped in linen before being placed in the tomb. (Matt.27:59) Leviticus is about not mixing the sacred with the secular. This mandate is emphasised in civil and ceremonial laws that (yes) seem funny by today's standard i.e. mixing of garments. Then there's Moral Law. These laws remain relevant today. Homosexuality falls under a Moral Law. Why? Life is sacred. Therefore, sex is sacred; seeing only through sex does life spring forth. Homosexuality is a perversion of God's sacred gift to us, namely, monogamous heterosexual sex.

It is a Christian school that teaches you to love the sinner but hate the sin. I love how I never read about how intolerant other religions are that stone and castrate women, they are given the thumbs up sign and we should stay out of their beliefs. If you are gay don't go to Wheaton choose a school that is not following the word of Jesus, there are plenty.

Jeff, some day you will be wise enough to recognize that life itself is inconsistent. That constant change is part of everything. Lots of luck in fighting that! Before I hopefully leave this annoying little thread, allow me to again point out that in this country no person or organization is required to be "correct," intelligent, enlightened, senstitive or anything else other than to not break the law of the land. Wheaton College is trying to
contribute to this world as best it can, and they generally seem to do a better job at that than most universities IMHO. Just as importantly, if you reallllly understand and appreciate the concept of freedom of thought and action, you cut them some slack as they evovle like all the rest of us, rather than ridicule them as you pound the drum of political correctness.

Jeff,
You might want to try your reasoning out on yourself. If Wheaton College isn't for you why not leave it alone and write about the benefits of the many many colleges out there that share your world view. Do you really think those that work in the press are some how above ideological bias. Again I 'm a consumer of local news. Why shouldn't I voice my interest in seeing stories that I would like to read about?

Dan,

Of course you should voice your interest! Absolutely! But your target should then be the Patch Editors and not me!

Jeff

“But instead of letting this absurdity go, as they should have, Wheaton College couldn’t resist issuing a response.” Really Jeff? I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have found a way to blog about a non-response.

Roger,

I have to say you're wrong!

Remember, I already said this survey is far from scientific. Had Wheaton College NOT responded, I probably would've defended them. As I wrote in the column, It's patently unfair to deem a college the least friendly to gays based on one bad question in an 80 question survey.

One of my mother's favorite sayings was, "consider the source."

For example, I think Michelle Bachmann is dangerous. But as Jon Stewart just noted, the Newsweek cover picture that made her look nuts was uncalled for. And Anderson Cooper rightfully said the UK photo of her eating an Iowa corndog (wink, wink) was absurd.

I'm all for letting her rise or fall of her own accord and if you've read the body of my work, you already know I don't play favorites.

Jeff

Bottom line is if you have any hate in your heart towards any group of people including Muslims, gays, etc, then you can call yourself Christian but you're just wearing the t-shirt. You're missing the whole point of Christianity which is to do unto others as you would have done to yourself. Christianity is supposed to be about love and compassion. Get a clue.

Joe,

Without hesitation! But it has to be local. The Patch's mantra is local, local, local. And Wheaton College is about as local as it gets. Should a Muslim based incident within the Patch purview spark my interest - good or bad - you can rest assured I'll take it up.

Jeff

To put it the most simply sex outside of Marriage is a Mortal sin, thus the "death" part. Since Marriage is between one man and one woman, created in Gods image and likeness, there is no true Marriage between same sex attracted people. It states very clearly throughout the whole Bible, that "Fornicators" will not enter Heaven, unless of course they repent. But as Jesus says "The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand", so don't wait too much longer to repent. We love the sinner, hate the son.

You know, Jeff a pretty wise fellow named Ralph Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."

We have the freedom and ability to think for ourselves. If we are to operate from a ready-made set of instructions, we'd be pretty boring people, indeed. If a Buddhist wants to practice meditation but forgo an ascetic lifestyle, I don't think it renders his entire philosophy invalid. Same for the person who person who observes Ramadan but doesn't pray to Mecca in the office 3 times a day. We're people, not machines and we're free to pick and choose our philosophy. Of course, you're free to cast stones in your column, too.

Jeff - I tend to agree with you that it seemd inconsistent that Wheaton would take a stand on this but not other "Biblical" issues. That said, Wheaton is a private institution, and as long as they don't run afoul of the law, we really have no say in what they teach, yes? But yeah, I agree with you, it does seem inconsistent which biblical laws we choose to follow. As you may have noticed, it's not necesarily a popular position to take. :-D My point, and maybe a little of yours:
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it." ~ Stephen Colbert
And now I will go back to hiding under my rock.

Sorry, I need to make another observation on the core absurdity of this thread. In the final analysis it is just about what Wheaton College thinks the Bible says on sexuality vs. what reporter want-to-be Jeff Ward thinks. Does the Bible say sex is sin if it involves anything other than a loving, married, consenting man and woman doing it in the missionary position? What about oral sex? Anal sex? Sex with battery operated toys? Rough S&M sex? "Experimental" oral sex between two college coeds? An all-out orgie? The all-out-orgie with batteries and animals? I think I now better realize none of us should much care what limited guidance Wheaton College, Jeff Ward or even the Bible offers us on sexual behavior...

Directing this back to Jeff's stated main issues of biblical truth and applying an ALL or nothing standard to it, I have some further observations: (Page one of two)
• You’ve taken this non-event to an extreme position and made a Seinfeld show about nothing.
• When looking at Wheaton College as a local DuPage County for profit business (what it basically is) and using your own ALL or nothing rational that you are applying to Wheaton College, to be fair you must also apply those same ALL or nothing standards to ALL other for profit businesses in DuPage County.
• In your context applied specifically to this situation, the ALL or nothing standard relates to how a local for profit business chooses to write and apply their standard rules or code of conduct.
• Your words specifically say that once Wheaton College invokes a biblical truth as one of their standard rules or code of conduct, they must then invoke ALL biblical truths – otherwise they are inconsistent and hypocrites.
• With all due respect, would this in turn mean that you are inconsistent or a hypocrite to apply this condition to Wheaton College only and not to ALL other DuPage County for profit businesses?
• You may reply that Wheaton College uses biblical truth for their standard rules or code of conduct and other DuPage County business do not use biblical truth as theirs…or do they?
(See Page Two)

Joe,

I don't.

Jeff

Dear Jeff and Wheaton College,

Please help me, I am really confused. Give me the easy answers to the questions I posted above and be sure to explain how you know they are correct. Also, I forgot to ask, is masturbation good or bad and is it sex with or without birth control I should avoid? Finally, should I love and respect everyone, no matter what their sexual practices are, and do I have to room with them in college? I know you have answers for all this. I'm just so confused now. Your BFF, Billy

Unlike other religions which share the history of the OT, Christianity's goal was to replace the legalism of the OT to the freedom and power of a loving heart in the NT. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Bible could not possibly address every conceivable issue that challenges us. Where there are some clues, modern Christians continue to look for guidance and have always been inconsistent by your standards. Regardless, these are examples of laws that were meant to be replaced by a higher law.
In my opinion, today's vocal, hardline Christians do their faith great harm by reverting to a legalistic biblical endorsement of their political agenda in a frustrated attempt to reclaim lost values in the areas of marriage, sex, family and money. (Well, not so much money.) While I may be sympathetic to some of their causes, I strongly disagree with their linking of religion with politics or to personal agendas. Religion should remain an intimately personal experience evidenced not by proclamation but by loving behavior.
More to the point of your article, Jeff, the college's statement and, as best as I can see their teachings and behavior, don't indicate an assertive anti-gay attitude. I agree with others that you've chosen a rather friendly dog to kick around.

Jeff, the most problematic part of your article is the assumption that "biblical truth" means a particular verse. I haven't read the statement you're referring to, but I can be pretty sure Leviticus was not referenced. I've taught at Wheaton for 10 years, and I can tell you that I have not met any faculty, staff or administrator who does "not want to associate with" or shuns gay people. The Christian church has had a pretty strict sexual ethic for centuries: no sex with anyone to whom you are not married. Marriage has always been defined heterosexually based primarily on the doctrine of creation, not particular verses in the Law. There are gay students at Wheaton, but they must adhere to the same sexual code of conduct the rest of us ascribe to. Of course people disagree with this reading of scripture, but it is not so simple minded as just picking a verse. You say you don't need to speak with anyone at Wheaton to know what we think because we refer to "biblical truth." I really think you don't understand the teaching of Wheaton College (and an enormous portion of the Christian Church world wide) if you assume that this is about ignoring passages of scripture and affirming others.

Thank you for correcting the latest misrepresentation by Mr.Ward. It really is amazing he is still allowed to write for Patch!!

As to why Wheaton College issued a response to the Princeton Survey, the media world-wide singled out that one of 80 survey questions and--as the Chicago Tribune-- headlined it to convey a distorted picture of the school. The President owed it to his alumni and constituency to state the school's position. As a former staff member and Wheaton resident for 61 years, be assured Wheaton College is not "unfriendly" toward any students, including gays who have chosen to attend knowing its theologically-based position and published standards of conduct. In fact, when the homosexual Soul Force Caravan descended uninvited on campus three Aprils ago--hoping, as one gay youth said, to be forceably prevented from entering to attract even more media attention-- the Administration feted them, allowed them access to students, held several public forms where Soul Force spokespersons presented their arguments to the entire student body...all while fully aware this group's declared intention was, and is, to pressure change in the school's Statement of Faith. The leader of the group came to a senior WH administrator a year ahead and told him flatly: "We're going to get you, and we won't stop until we do!" As for being #1 unfriendly, that's suspect too.
Of the over 25 U.S. evangelical colleges and universities, all but three were left out of the survey universe so, regretfully, we question also Wheaton #2 in sobriety but will fight to keep #1 for food because it IS fantastic.

Why is Princeton producing a list of good and bad schools for gay people? Did they only use the student fees of gay students to do it with, or is Princeton an all-gay school anyway? What was the point of this in the first place?

Interesting article - nicely written and funny too. Even more interesting is the hornet's nest it stirred up.

Can I suggest for your next article - "Which religion is right, and why all the others are wrong".

The New Testament does condemn homosexuality....Romans 1.

If a straight person gets involved with a gay person - that is a sin (wrong).

If both people are gay then I see no reason to be against it.

Don't tread on gay Americans......and yes Obama is a joke.