WKU Controversy: Art or Attack?

Posted by GCA students "J.P.G.", "H.M.C.", "A.K.B", "K.M.I.", "J.T.R.", and "O.R.P."

 

        Once again we have another attack on Christianity under the excuse that it is “art”. Elaina Smith, an art student at Western Kentucky University, was caught placing condoms on crosses that were set up on campus to represent the number of abortions that happened in a day. Smith s assignment was to create an art exhibit.

       Is placing condoms on some other student's project count as an exhibit? Some art students think that it is art because it is expresses opinions and draws emotion; on the other hand, art students do not think it takes much artistic talent to do what Smith did. Where should the line be drawn between freedom of expression and infringing on another's expression. The art teacher at WKU did not discourage what Smith did, but rather encouraged her. The President, Gary Ransdell, claimed that Elaina apologized, but Elaina claimed otherwise to the media.*

       What constitutes placing condoms on someone else's exhibit as one's own exhibit? Should Smith receive a grade for her own freedom of expression impending on someone else's project or should she create her own project. One must ask themselves; had condoms been placed on a Buddhist or Muslim symbol would the outcry for justice been louder. This was not an art project but an attack against Christianity.

*BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY, April 25, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The student who placed condoms over 3,700 crosses at Western Kentucky University as part of an “art project,” has told the media she has not apologized for the desecration, as university president Gary Ransdell publicly claimed she had done. The girl’s art professor has also admitted she approved the vandalism.

Obama's Announcement

Posted by GCA student "R.T.W."

            Ever since North Carolina decided to ban homosexual marriages, the issues of same sex marriage has been floating about in politics. With the Presidential elections just around the corner, Democrats and Republicans are taking sides on this issue. As Barack Obama seeks reelection, he needed to officially declare which side of the fence he is on, and he made the announcement last week. Obama told ABC news that he believes same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

            This announcement will have impact on events coming up in the nearby future. The obvious one is the Presidential election. Obama clearly hopes that his announcement will get him the votes. Republicans also plan to address the issue in their campaign. The issue on same sex marriage is sure to lose some votes for both parties, or perhaps boost one candidate to victory. Either way, it will be an important factor when voters fill out their ballots.

            Since this all stemmed from the North Carolina ban, it is important to look at the state level regarding this issue. Thirty-nine states already had a ban on same sex marriages, but because of today's culture and the upcoming election, North Carolina gets all the attention. It's not like this is something completely new and unheard of. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, many states have adopted this policy. If it were not for the Presidential election, this would  not be such a big issue, and Obama would never had said anything.

Is President Obama an Avenger?

Posted by GCA student "C.S."

                President Obama has officially declared that his position of homosexual rights has “evolved” to the point that he now believes homosexual couples should have the right to marry. This has put the American church in a unique situation. How should the church respond? Should we make signs that read along the lines of “Pray Away the Gay” or “God Created Adam and Eve, not Steve” and protest outside the White House and Capitol Building? Should we obey the call for tolerance from this culture and just let them be “happy?” Should our pulpits be silent on the issue? Should they only preach God’s love for homosexuals? God forbid. In all four possibilities, Christ would not be glorified and the church would not be preparing the world for His soon-coming return. So, what do we do?

                First, we must speak out in defense of the Bible’s position on homosexuality. To summarize our “Response to Homosexuality and Gay Adoption,” the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. It does this by directly addressing it in 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1. It also does this by showing God’s plan for the family before sin entered into the world. In Genesis, God created man and woman to work the garden and multiply to fill the earth. There is no doubt about the clarity of Scripture regarding homosexual sin. We, the bride of Christ, must defend the truth He has revealed to us in Scripture. We must be willing to step into academia and defend the logic of God. Silence can no longer be our response.

                Second, we must reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel of Christ. We have the life-changing news that Jesus has come to this world to redeem us from our sin! We cannot afford to be labeled as homophobic when we are called to be salt and light. Christ has called us to be friends to homosexuals. We cannot condone their sin, but we must show them the love of Christ. Do not be quick to forget about our state before Christ changed us. We were enemies of the cross who were slaves to sin. We were hopeless. The same Jesus that died for us, died for them as well. Let us reach out to the homosexual community like never before in the history of the church!

                Third, we must honor and respect President Obama. Although, as the church, we should not agree with his position, we cannot think of him in hate or wish terrible things upon him. Romans 13:1 reads, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Scripture makes it clear that God has placed President Obama in authority. Romans 13 continues to say that whoever rebels against authorities rebels against what God has instituted and is bringing judgment on himself. We respond to the President the same way we do homosexuals- with love. We are called to obey the government as long as it is not forcing us to do something that is against God’s commands. Can we show our disapproval of the President’s decision? Of course we can and should, but our response must be seasoned with the love of Christ.

               President Obama clearly does not hold the conservative views of an orthodox Christian, and he has done many things that hinder the church. Why is this? I believe Romans 13:3-4 holds that answer. “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” As a nation, we have clearly done wrong in the eyes of God. We watch millions of lives be murdered year after year in the horrid act of abortion. We watch doctors end the lives of our elderly and helpless with an injection. We silently watch men take advantage of women in ways unthinkable through sex trade. We buy luxurious items just to play with while millions of people die of starvation and unclean drinking water around the world. Need I go any further? President Obama is being sovereignly used by God to give us as a people what we deserve. He is clearly one of God’s avengers who carry out His wrath.

              The American church must lead our nation to fall to her knees in desperate repentance to the holy God if we want this judgment to end. We must have a voice and it must be loud. We must have hands that serve the oppressed and helpless. We must have feet that run to the lost with the Gospel. We must teach children to seek God instead of the American dream. We must lead in the repentance of our dear country. President Obama is leading our country farther away from biblical principles, and it might just be our fault.

                Although our situation might seem hopeless, we know God hears our prayers. Our hope must be in Christ and Christ alone. He can heal our nation. As we speak up about the Bible’s stance on homosexuality, share the Gospel with homosexuals, respect our President, and repent of our sin, God will be faithful to us. He will not forsake His church in America. We must draw near unto God, and He will draw near unto us. Church, let us make a difference. Church, let us respond powerfully in love! Praise be to God for preserving this nation thus far, and may He continue to do so with His providential power.

WKU Condoms on Crosses

Posted by GCA student "C.W."

On April 24, 2012, the foundations of Western Kentucky University were shaken regarding the freedom of speech and expression. Elaina Smith, WKU art student, was seen placing condoms on some of the crosses that were set up in WKU’s old football stadium. These crosses were set in place by Hilltoppers for Life for the purpose of showing how many abortions occur in a day. This event stirred the Pro-Life and Christian community. The purpose of this response is to affectively show where one receives his rights and how the act offended Christians.

            Throughout this event, Elaina Smith and others adhere to the idea that this event was orchestrated out of a freedom of expression. The WKU students argue that it was just a part of the freedom of speech. Yet, according to the U.S. courts, the distribution of obscene materials is not a part of this freedom. Condoms are considered an obscene material because it is abhorrent to morality or values. If this was an act of freedom of expression and was highly legal, then shouldn’t we allow others to experience this freedom? Shouldn’t we allow serial killers, pedophiles, sociopaths, and others to express how they feel? Yet, anyone in their right mind would not allow that.  If everyone was allowed a freedom of creativity, then extremists would be allowed to put their plans into action, and who knows where the human race would be today.

            This event is also seen as just a class project in which learning and debating is free to flow from. Yet, was this, as art professor, Kristina Arnold, says, just a lesson in debating? This act, as seen by myself and many others, was not a form of debating, it was more of a form of vandalism. This is where we see how it was offending to Christians. To a Christian, the cross is a symbol of Jesus Christ’s saving power and love, but when a condom or any other object is added, it will cause an upset. For example, if beef were placed on a Hindu symbol, it would cause the same effect. President Gary Ransdell said, “No member of our University family should impede another member of our family’s freedom of speech or creative effort, especially when it comes to exercising religious freedoms. The offending student has apologized. This matter has been dealt with properly, decisively, and brought to a conclusion.” Mr. Ransdell seems to have ended this conflict very well, but in all reality it has not ended. Elaina Smith has yet to issue and apology, and doesn’t seem willing to in the future. Hilltoppers for Life request that she does not get credit for this project, and is right in wishing so. This was not an act of art, but of vandalism and was thus offensive.

Sources:

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FirstAmendment/WhatDoesFreeSpeechMean.aspx

Article: Art Professor of Student, Accused Of Desecrating Pro-Life Cross Display For Project, Speaks Up by Elsa Bolt

Response to Homosexuality and Gay Adoption

Our senior class at Glasgow Christian Academy has developed a passion to ensure young adults like ourselves have the proper view of the family. We have determined that the number one attack against traditional marriage is that homosexual couples should have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples, including the right to adoption. Throughout the upcoming pages, we will give a defense of the traditional family that leads to why homosexuals should not adopt children. We will give this defense through Scripture, as we believe it is the source of ultimate truth, and we will give this defense through sound reasoning and even from differing worldviews. We will first examine the logic not in favor of homosexuality then we will look into the Bible’s view of it.


We would like to add a disclaimer at this point. Many people will call us "homophobes" and "intolerant," and then disregard this argument on that basis. We are not "homophobes" in any way. Many members of our class have or have had homosexual friends. We desire the best for homosexuals, and we believe the best for them is not a life of homosexuality but of freedom in Jesus. For these reasons we begin a defense of the traditional family for the glory of God and the betterment of humanity.


We will give logical arguments against homosexuality by first looking at homosexuals and their rights which will transition into homosexual marriage which will then transition into homosexual adoption. The first question to answer is how many homosexuals are there in the United States. The Kinsey report claimed that 10% of the male U.S. population was homosexual, but its findings were very flawed. The Kinsey report was to provide an "objectively determined body of facts about sex." (The Kinsey Institute) When the Kinsey report was conducted in 1948, Alfred Kinsey admitted that approximately 25% of the people interviewed were prison inmates who, due to their circumstance, had no way of having heterosexual relations. Kinsey also admitted to using several hundred male prostitutes in his survey. The Kinsey report clearly has no value in the current homosexual debate. Gary Gates from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy recently estimated from research that 8.2% of the 18 and over population of the United States has had sex with a same-sex partner. He also estimated that only 1.7% of the same population (about 4 million people) identify themselves as gay or lesbian. That is a far cry from Kinsey’s report of 10% of males being predominantly homosexual. (Huffington Post, Gary Gates)


Next we will address the issue of homosexuality being a biological predisposition. Homosexuality is not something one is born with. This is one way many people defend a homosexual desire. We believe homosexuality is in the brain. We understand that homosexuality in an individual has a beginning point, whether that is at the age of ten or thirty, but that cannot be before birth or shortly after birth. Although a number of reports have claimed that homosexuality is a biological predisposition, their findings have never been widely accepted in the scientific community. No irrefutable evidence has been presented.


This is a good time to show why the issue of homosexuality is not like the black civil rights movement. This is the case because African Americans did not have a choice to be black. Homosexuals have a choice on whether they want to fall into the temptation of homosexuality or not. Another difference between the homosexuality movement and the civil rights movement is that one is trying to redefine terms while the other is not. Homosexuality is arguing to redefine marriage but the civil rights movement was not trying to redefine race. For these two reasons, homosexuality should not be compared to the civil rights movement.


Every human has a predisposition to sin naturally, and some people even have additional predispositions to sin based on their upbringing. Children born to alcoholic parents have a greater tendency to be alcoholics. Sons raised by a womanizing father are going to have a tendency to be more lustful and adulterous than sons who were raised by a faithful husband. We would also like to state that even if homosexuality is a biological predisposition, it should be treated. The United States would not allow a man who molests children to continue doing so because he has a predisposition toward children. We would lock this man up as a pedophile, and treat and counsel him. If homosexuality is given the standing as a predisposition and as being acceptable, then it only seems that in a short matter of time, people who practice other immoral things will seek legal protection and rights as well. We do not want to set a precedent that future generations could follow.


Homosexuality is also a dangerous health risk. The Institute for Sex Research reported that only 10% of male homosexuals are monogamous. They also reported that 60% of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners. Twenty-eight percent of homosexual men have had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of gay men said that more than half of those sexual partners were complete strangers. This promiscuity has led to about 49% of people living with HIV in the United States to be men who have sexual relations with other men (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Again, homosexuality is a dangerous health risk.


We would now like to clearly say that we are not coming from an evolutionary worldview. We do not see adequate support for macro-evolution as Darwin believed, but we see micro-evolution in nature such as in the Galapagos finches. We believe in God who created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. That being clearly said, we would like to make an additional case against homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint. The purpose of Darwinian evolution is to slowly make a species into the image of perfection through the process of natural selection. Natural selection needs a diverse gene pool to accomplish this according to Darwin. Homosexuality is in contradiction with natural selection because the people practicing it are voluntarily taking their genes out of the gene pool. According to evolution, one of these people could possess the gene that furthers humanity to its next great stage. It would be non-logical for someone to be a homosexual and hold to Darwinian evolution. So with that additional argument being stated, let us move on to homosexual marriage.


We would first like to make it clear that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as the remainder of U.S. citizens. No homosexual is denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as is the right of other Americans. Homosexuals are not denied the same right as is given to heterosexuals. It would take a total redefinition of marriage to make that the case. We also see that rights and freedom come from the laws of the United States which are based on the Constitution. The Constitution was written by men who held to, at the very least, a Judeo-Christian moral code. This Judeo-Christian worldview is intrinsically where U.S. rights come from. There would be no way to give a right from the Constitution that would contradict where the right ultimately comes from.


The lack of homosexual monogamy even in "marriage" would also lead to the weakening of the traditional family and the home. As a post-homosexual revolution generation is raised to see men sleep with literally over a thousand men in their lifetime, they will see marriage as a waxing and waning relationship that requires little to no faithfulness. Even if members of this generation are heterosexual, they will see a homosexual relationship that has the same legal rights with no commitment. This unfaithfulness in homosexuals will no doubt lead to a weakening of traditional marriage.


Heterosexuality is better for society as a whole than homosexuality. It gives men and women gender roles that better society as men lead, protect, and provide; and women nurture, follow, and help. It is the best environment for children to be loved, nurtured, and disciplined. It has always stood the test of time when homosexuality has fluctuated in the course of history. The laws of the United States are written for the general public, not specific exceptions to the majority. We would not legalize something that is wrong for just a few people, and the same principle applies as we should not legalize homosexuality for a small minority of people.


We will now briefly speak of why homosexuals should not have the right to adopt. We have clearly shown why homosexuality should not be on the same level as heterosexual marriage. We have shown that it is unnatural and will soon show it to be biblically wrong. We have shown that there are many logical reasons homosexuality should not be allowed. So why would we put children in a home where they will be raised with gender confusion and without the security found in the traditional construct of family? It makes absolutely no sense. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children because it is against the way nature works. Why put children in a homosexual home when either God or natural selection has not chosen homosexuality as a way for children to be produced? Homosexual adoption is unnatural and is not the setting in which children can be raised for their own best interest.


The Bible clearly shows homosexuality is wrong by two different ways. First, it shows the original intent of God for the family. It does this by showing the reader how Adam was created and Eve was formed from Adam. Eve was created for two reasons. These reasons are also the two commands God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. We were created to work to bring God glory by taking care of His creation, and we were created to spread the image of God through procreation within marriage. God created Eve because she could help Adam work the garden and because she made it possible for the multiplication of humanity through procreation. God created one man and one woman in the confines of marriage to spread His image in man (Gen 1:26). This was the perfect, original plan of God. Then Adam and Eve rebelled against God which gave every human a natural tendency to sin. This is why sin and evil exist in the world.


The second way the Bible teaches homosexuality as wrong is through it directly calling homosexuality a sin. In Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, we see that God clearly sees homosexuality as sin. Romans says, "For this reason [exchanging the truth of God for a lie] God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." It is blatantly clear that the Bible sees homosexuality as a sin, and not in any way the love He intended for us to experience with another human.


We also want to make sure you hear the good news that the Bible also states alongside passages that condemn homosexuality. The good news of the Gospel says that although we are all sinners, from Mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler, and are all separated from God by sin which damns us to eternity in hell, Jesus came to earth as a perfect man to die for our sins. The wrath of God against our sin was satisfied by Jesus’ death on the cross. But we have even greater news! Jesus did not stay dead. He arose from the grave three days later! Through His life, death, and resurrection, we have an opportunity to be brought back in right relationship with God. If we confess our sins and have faith that Jesus is who He said He was and did what He said He did, then we can be forgiven from all of our sins and be perfect in God’s eyes because of Christ. This is the good news for all humanity!


We want to end by summarizing that we clearly see homosexuality as a distortion of what was originally intended in a marriage covenant. We would love for you to not just read this and throw it away mentally, but really ponder the arguments we have made. We want to encourage you that no matter what your past may have been or your present might be, change is possible. Organizations such as Exodus International and Courage exist to help people who struggle with homosexuality. Many people who get help from these organizations turn from their lifestyle to live for Christ. We encourage you, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, to trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior and follow him all the days of your life! Current issues come and go but the truth of Jesus remains forever!