A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Interesting article from the Christian Post on common ground between liberal and conservative Christians.
I have not read the report but will look for it…If anyone finds a link, please post it.
UPDATE – H/T Jay – Here is the website supporting this effort.
Yesterday, I reported that a rumor was flying around about Exodus President Alan Chambers. Alan acted quickly and appropriately to address the false information. Today, the columnist at the heart of the brouhaha issued an apology to Alan Chambers. To serve fairness and openness, I reproduce it here.
To Alan Chambers and whom it make concern:
A project of mine which was intended to be seen by only a few eyes has been widely published by prying busibodies causing damage to Mr. Chambers and myself. Never the less, conscience and human decency obliges me to make things right. I have had an e-mail conversation with Mr. Chambers, and after a rocky start, we both relaxed and just said what we thought. To the extent that I am a judge of human nature he seems to be an honorable man, and engaging personality and winsomely candid. I believe his answers to my questions because this man is no liar. In our conversation, I disagreed with him on several points and got the impression of an open minded man.
I have concluded that the charges made against him made by Paul Cameron and parroted by me are false. I do not think Cameron is a liar. He is a zealot against evil, but sometimes is hasty and careless about seeing evil where none lies.
My sins in the matter were several. I had no grounds to use the word “sodomy.” Although it is biblically correct word, its revolting connotations should limit its use to carefully accurate and potent situations – never to be thrown about carelessly like I did. As a man who deals in words, I ought to have known better and have no excuse. I have read Cameron for years and trusted him because I share his zeal for truth and his horror of the gay political agenda which is undermining the American family and seducing many pastors. However, I prided myself on a zeal for truth – and here I fell down in the area I thought was my greatest strength. A man of principle does mow down innocent bystanders with the bandwagon of crusade. Why did I not ask myself, could Cameron be wrong in his fragmented snippets? I was in the flow of concentration and did not stop to reflect – as a principled man would do. I apologize to Mr. Cameron for the pain I brought him through these sins.
I never once asked myself what this might mean to Mr. Cameron if a busy body brought it to his attention. My failure to even think about that evinces a lack of humanity. We are fallen beings and we lie to ourselves if we think that being a Christian instantly reverses the fall. This failure to reflect on what a word might mean to the other fellow is for me a dark besetting sin.
Now a word for the voyeuristic busy bodies. The repeated demands that I repent and recant before I understood what has happened and could search my heart and my conscience – such demands evince the morality of a high school clique. If I were one of you in your shallow clique, I would instantly recant just to please you and be spared your censure. If I were to recant just because of group pressure I could not look myself in the mirror. You were trying to force me into an unprincipled move just to mollify you because your favorite guy was mistreated. How does that differ from a high school clique? The juvenile impatience of it all. Where was the patience to wait while I methodically sought for the truth. Where is the adult in your midst?
I was frequently upbraided for not checking sources behind by my sources. If I had intended to publish that would be a legitimate criticism. But a informal project only for a few eyes – not so. I had two sources and it was more than you usually get in a piece for discussion by an intimate group. The ones I chose to see it were chosen for their wisdom and discretion – to guide me in case I got off course. When the piece was released to the lynch mob, I felt violated and betrayed. Such was the deafness of the mob, that even after I explained what had happened, the criticism that I did not check the sources of the sources – kept coming again and again. Open your ears and quit talking nonsense.
In my long project, of which this piece is a footnote, I was trying to figure out if our shallow, lukewarm evangelicalism is in a state of melt down. Mr Chambers proves to me that you still have a few good men. However, the feeding frenzy of the busybodies tilts me towards the melt-down theory. Fred Hutchison
Boxturtle Bulletin has some interesting background on the rift between Exodus and Paul Cameron that sets a context for the information used by Mr. Hutchison.
Fred Hutchison, a conservative columnist, yesterday sent an email to a small distribution list criticizing a variety of conservative and liberal evangelicals over their positions and statements on homosexuality. This email was then widely distributed among social conservatives. One claim stood out:
Ex-gay leader returns to sodomy
According to Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute Alex Chambers, (sic) Director of Exodus International, the largest Evangelical organization for ex-gays declared that he is no longer ex-gay and is not sure he has ever met an ex-gay! He is now calling to Evangelicals to reconcile with practicing gays.
I contacted Mr. Hutchison and he cited again Paul Cameron and also added the LA Times as sources. He is referring to the LA Times article where Alan was quoted discussing realistic views of sexual orientation change. It is beyond me how one could reach Hutchison’s conclusion from the LA Times article. I wonder what Paul Cameron had to say. I have emailed to ask but have no response as yet.
As for Alan, he has not had a change of heart regarding homosexuality and is understandably unhappy about the false claims, asking for a speedy retraction.
When Mr. Hutchison has a response, I will include it here.
UPDATE: Mr. Hutchison sent an email response to this post and asked me to publish it.
“I was doing confidential research on the evangelical left and selected a few good men to supervise me to keep me on track. I really thought Paul Cameron and the LA Times were adequate sources because I had no intention to publish. One of my trusted advisors published the piece all over creation resulting in tremendous criticism from many quarters. He publishes my stuff and then chides me for not having deep enough sources for publication. A double game. I do regret using the word “sodomy.” Other than that I must finish my research, get all the facts and retell the story more perfectly in line with the truth. At the moment I am in communication with Alan Chambers and intend to give him a fair hearing. If retractions are needed I will not hesitate to retract. This was my intention from the start of this explosive controversy. However, I respect facts and not pressure or public calumny. Fair enough? Fred Hutchison
Developing…
The recent articles regarding Hillary Clinton have been quite popular. I am following up with a series of interviews with friend, colleague and presidential historian Paul Kengor regarding the role of faith and social policy in the upcoming election. This interview presents Paul’s take on the religious views of front-runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, specifically with regard to abortion policy. Would Rudy be denied communion? Does Hillary think of abortion as a kind of sacred right? Read on…
THROCKMORTON: Just a basic question for foundation: Why do you believe that the religious views of politicians are relevant to their campaign for the presidency?
KENGOR: To quote FDR, the presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership, and religion is the foundation of morality. George Washington noted that religion and morality are the “indispensable supports” of a successful democratic republic. There is no such thing as a legislator or policy-maker who leaves morality out of his or her decision making. All of our figures impose some kind of personal morality, whether flawed or not. Religion is usually the basis for that morality, and, in American history, typically the Christian religion.
Presidential candidates often point to their faith as justification for the policies they promote during their campaigns.
I believe, the scandal is when you have a liberal Democrat like John Kerry who stated in the final 2004 presidential debate, “My faith affects everything I do, really,” and then cites how his faith influences his desire to end poverty, to clean up the environment, to hike the minimum wage, but then, suddenly, completely separates his Roman Catholic faith from life-death issues like abortion and embryonic research. In my view, that’s outrageous. Kerry does it, Mario Cuomo does it, Ted Kennedy does it, and, most recently, from the Republican side of the aisle, Rudy Giuliani is doing it.
THROCKMORTON: Your new book examines the religious views of the current democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. How about the Republican leader, Rudy Giuliani? What is his religious background?
KENGOR: He says that he studied theology for four years in college, after completing 12 years at a Catholic private school. By studying theology, I think he means that he was probably required to take some religious education courses at Manhattan College, which was the Catholic college that he attended, where I believe he studied politics and philosophy. He says that at one point he considered becoming a priest.
THROCKMORTON: What are his current religious leanings and how will these impact his policy making?
KENGOR: He has been quite private about that, knowing that any mention of his faith will get him in hot water as the first major pro-choice Republican with a legitimate crack at winning the party’s presidential nomination. The Republican Party has become the Party of Life, and nominating Rudy might well change that image. There are numerous pro-life Christians, Protestant and Catholic, who are going to fight that possible shift, from the likes of James Dobson at Focus on the Family to the pages of the National Catholic Register. They are not pleased that after all of these pro-life gains that have come only because of Republican presidents fighting abortion extermists in the Democratic Party, there is a sudden chance of a course reversal under a Republican president named Rudy Giuliani, no matter what his guarantees about appointing “strict constructionist” judges. They understand that in the real world there will be an untold number of pro-abortion executive orders and initiatives and decisions that would come across a President Giuliani’s desk, and that concerns them. As president, he might at best get to appoint two Supreme Court justices, but he will constantly be dealing with a flurry of pro-life and anti-life legislation.
THROCKMORTON: I have heard Mr. Giuliani say, I hate abortion. How does he reconcile this statement and his Catholic affiliation with his abortion public policy?
KENGOR: Hopefully, everyone hates abortion. The burning question in response would be to ask him why he hates abortion. Naturally, one would presume, he would say that he hates abortion because it terminates a human life. That being the case, how can one support the termination of human life? Once he concedes that point, he knows he’s in trouble. His church is very clear on this, from encyclicals like Humanae Vitae to Evangelium Vitae to Veritatis Splendor to the Catechism to the very recent eloquent remarks from Pope Benedict XVI.
Imagine this striking scenario: a Catholic president of the United States who is denied Holy Communion in certain dioceses because of his stance on abortion. That would be truly remarkable.
Non-Catholics have trouble understanding this, so let me try to explain Catholic thinking: Catholics believe that at Holy Communion they receive the literal body and blood of Christ. The recent Vatican document Redemptionis Sacramentum affirms Church teaching that “anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” The document restated the church’s position that anyone knowingly in “grave sin” must go to confession before ingesting the consecrated bread and wine that Catholics consider the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cardinal Francis Arinze said that “unambiguously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians are “not fit” to receive the sacred elements.The Vatican has spoken on this. It is up to American bishops to decide whether to carry out the policy.
In 2004, a number of Catholic archbishops suggested or flatly stated that if a President John Kerry presented himself for communion in their diocese he would be turned away. Among others, these included Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, and even Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston—Kerry’s home diocese. Most recently, in Giuliani’s case, Archbishop Burke has spoken up.
THROCKMORTON: Compared to Hillary Clinton, who would be most pro-choice, if such a comparison can be made?
KENGOR: That’s a no-brainer: Hillary Clinton. If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.
By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.
THROCKMORTON: Of Hillary and Rudy, who would most likely make abortion rights a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments?
KENGOR: Hillary, no question. She has made that clear. Rudy would not.
In reviewing the websites involving the IHF personnel and the Unification Movement, I have become interested in this perspective. The Unification teachings are clearly distortions of orthodox Christian theology but could sound familiar and even appealing to many Christians.
Here are a couple of websites that are associated with the Unification movement and “Blessed Families”:
True Parents Organization – The page defines True Parents as follows:
Who are True Parents Page
This web site is dedicated to Heavenly Father (God) and True Parents (Reverend and Mrs. Moon). Adam and Eve should have been the True Parents of humanity. A physical and spiritual ideal world (Kingdom of Heaven) should have stemmed from them. However, they fell by sexual sin.
Heavenly Father worked with fallen man to make a foundation to send a Second Adam, Jesus. Jesus, the Second Adam, should have fulfilled what Adam did not. Jesus should have grown to maturity, married a Second Eve, had children, and established a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth and in Heaven. However, he was not received by those prepared to welcome him, resulting in Jesus going the way of the cross. The cross gave spiritual salvation, but could not solve the entire problem of sin.
Since, Jesus could not fulfil his entire mission, Heavenly Father had to rebuild the foundation for True Parents, by sending the Third Adam, Sun Myung Moon. Rev. Moon fulfilled the mission of True Parents that Adam and Jesus had failed to fulfil. By uniting with Rev. and Mrs. Moon humanity can fulfil their purpose of creation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven both spiritually and physically.
The Unification church is perhaps best known for the mass weddings of followers who are matched by Moon himself or by parents within the movement. The website Absolute Love provides online guidance and application forms for young people seeking to receive advice on being matched in marriage – something called The Blessing. Rev. Moon offers advice to young people and there are numerous articles on the details. On one page, Assistant Director of the International Healing Foundation, Hilde Wiemann, provides commentary on a young lady’s beliefs about being too young to match.
The Church also hosts Blessing Candidate and Parent Workshops to provide information about the Blessings, such as this one attended by Mr. & Mrs. Wiemann. Recall that Mrs. Wiemann indicated that she left the church in 1995 and that these workshops were not done on a volunteer basis, but that the church hired her for her expertise in working with families.
I am writing about this because it interests me and to benefit those who are looking for a specific approach from those they work with in sexual identity ministry. What any of the above means regarding the IHF or those associated with it is not clear to me as yet. I am committed to preserving space for all to seek resolution of sexual identity conflicts within their worldview. I also believe in informed consent so that vulnerable folks can find help in line with their expectations about their helpers.
UPDATE: The following links have been altered on the AbsoluteLove.org website:
On one page, Hilde Wiemann provides commentary on a young lady’s beliefs about being too young to match.
If you click them now, they take you to a page that says: “You are not authorized to view this resource. You need to login.” I assume the page still exists since the page still lists the title of the article as “Too Young! A letter to Parents about the Matching. (With Responses).” Here is the page prior to the change. Posted in September 2006, Mrs. Wiemann’s reply to Jessica Cohen’s article urging Unification Church parents not to match their children before age 20 is below.
Other changes to the Absolutelove.org site have been made also. The page on the Absolutelove.org site describing a 2002 workshop has been altered. Here is a clipping from the Unification News paper that names Hilde Wiemann and her husband as being leaders at the 4-Day Blessings Candidate and Parent Workshop in Washington DC. Comparing the two you will see that they are alike except the Wiemann’s names have been recently removed from the Absolutelove.org version.
The tparents.org site has also been altered. Here is the “Too Young!” article now and here it is a couple of days ago. In the comments section, a reader in comment 52543, referred to a workshop that appears to refer to Richard Cohen. That website has now been altered as well.
