G.R.A.C.E. Promotes Feminist's Article

Charlie wrote: “Also, I agree that the label “feminist” is hardly alarming…”

If feminism doesn’t “alarm” you as a Christian, I’m afraid to ask what does.

The author I listed for that article made a difference between her “Christian faith” and secular “feminism”. She admittedly belongs to the BGSU Woman’s Group, and here is a list of some of the groups that participate in that:

*Trans Awareness Group - TAG-TAG is the Trans Awareness Group for BGSU students who identify as Trans, Genderqueer, Gender non-conforming, and Allies. TAG meets every Tuesday at 8 pm in room 107 in Hanna Hall.

*Vision-The undergraduate Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Questioning, and Straight Supportive (GLBTQIQSS) student organization. One of Vision’s goals is to provide a supportive and friendly environment for the GLBTQIQSS community here at Bowling Green.

Did you read any of her other articles? How about the one where she calls King David a rapist. (ignore that picture of the naked cartoon). Or her position on the Christian view of abortion and virginity. Sarah’s article on “So, What About the Men” she offers a list of men silenced by “gender roles” one of them being “[r] oles which completely ignore same-sex relationships”.

Some of the blogs she recommends: The Anarchist Reverend, a pro trans-gender LGBT advocate, and Naked Pastor, a proponent of progressive Christianity.

I didn’t spell out everything that I read because I assumed that any educated Christians that gave a cursory perusal of her material would have figured it out. My bad for assuming.

Charlie wrote: “….and used in the OP merely as a scare word.” “And I think “Dr” James Ach’s conspiracy theories are wildly inappropriate.”

So you can just recklessly claim that I used the term “feminism” as a “scare word” and have the nerve to call ME a conspiracy theorist! LOL. Perhaps I should have embellished my plot by adding “the chem-trails of feminism” (which, for the record, I don’t believe in).

The only thing in that every short post that you could possibly allude to as a “conspiracy theory”, which itself is quite a stretch, is my assumption that somebody from a Do Right group may be running the FB page. Is that so absurd? There are many in those groups who claim to be certified and or licensed counselors, psychotherapists, and victim advocates with degrees in those fields. It’s possible that an FB page may not rank as high on the priority list of other undertakings of GRACE’s ministry and someone from one these groups with such credentials could have volunteered to run that page.

But I did not just make that assumption based on that one post. I have seen several articles posted on the GRACE FB page that target fundamentalism specifically that I saw posted first on JZ’s page or on another “Do Right” page, and the fact that Sarah’s article was posted on GRACE’s page and the author is a member of JZ’s group is more than enough to assume that there may be some merit to what I alleged without it being relegated to a conspiracy theory (after you opined with your “conspiracy theory” about my intentions with the term ‘feminism’).

So just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m going to throw another “conspiracy theory” and suggest that perhaps you haven’t studied much on feminism, at least to the point where their philosophies and beliefs would be “alarming” to a Bible believing Christian.

PS. If you read some of the comments on the GRACE FB page, I wasn’t the only one that found the post offensive coming from a Christian organization. There are a few other “conspiracy theorists” on there, too :)

I would refer you to the response I gave to Charlie regarding some of the points you made about what you think feminism could imply.

I reject feminism as a whole, but for context, my OP is targeting Sarah’s view of feminism and her other associations. Feminism goes beyond mere defense of women’s rights in the workplace. Sarah is attempting to embrace a type of syncretism amalgamating some from of Christian faith to secular feminism. However, even if it espoused as “Christian” feminism (such as the brand of Katherine Bushnell) it is no more Christian than Atheists for Jesus. It is an unchristian egalitarian system that rejects Biblical gender roles and sexuality and traditional views of marriage and family.

And the cult name is the name JZ gave to her group which I think Rob Fall addressed.

That is somewhat non sequitur to the post since I didn’t make the connection between GRACE and why BJU hired them, but for arguments sake I’ll respond to the second paragraph.

The anti-fundamentalist would surprise me since they have a team of professionals (that include lawyers) investigating claims of abuse, and claim to do so under the guise of a Godly response, so I would think they would take a neutral stand or at least a NON fundamentalist stand so as to avoid any appearance of partiality.

I don’t know that GRACE adopts a progressive Christianity philosophy, I could be wrong. Liberal compared to fundamentalism perhaps, but in terms of the popular progressive movement, I have not seen any substantial evidence of that. If they are progressives, then I would not be alarmed because progs tend to tolerate everyone but fundamentalists. I would still be offended by the content, but would have possibly withheld my scrutiny (depending on if I’d read the post before or after coffee).

You know, you should have taken credit for those videos because it appears that Pope Disa F. Fected was about to absolve you of all of your “lies” and “crimes” you posted about him/them.

I did finally get a response from GRACE, but it didn’t really address my concern and was somewhat neutral.

“Consistent with our agreement with BJU, the GRACE Team employs several venues in an attempt to identify and understand a range of perspectives and viewpoints, especially from individuals with complaints or grievances. Third party postings and comments on our Facebook page therefore do not necessarily represent our endorsement of a particular viewpoint or theological perspective.”

My complaint was that the post was generated BY GRACE, not a third party. I also gave them details about the other postings the third party website made that showed support for abortion, homosexual rights, support of anti-Christian websites, and even down to articles that referred to King David as a rapist, and I don’t think that response was very adequate.

I’m quite disappointed in that response and the post is still on their FB page.

I can still view their involvement with BJU or AWBE or any other organizations the way I would view a secular investigative team. However, what was initially encouraging to me when GRACE became involved with these organizations was that I presumed that their work ethics were solidly Christian. That may not be as important to anyone else, but a Christian agency to me should be less likely to have an axe to grind with another Christian institution and skew the results of the investigation. I’m not saying that that will happen, but it does give me cause for concern when they post articles from those who are members of anti-fundamentalist groups who themselves have made it clear that regardless of the outcome of the GRACE investigation into BJU or anyone else, any church or college that deems itself as a fundamentalist institution is a cult, and I would have thought that GRACE would want to distance itself from any such groups to avoid the appearance of partiality and impropriety.

[Jay]

Would it be possible to see the list of articles that you referred to in the letter sent to GRACE? That’s an interesting and ominous development in my mind.

It certainly makes the decision of ABWE to cut off GRACE’s investigation a little more compelling.

Some of them are listed in the this thread above

I wouldn’t really see that as a compelling reason for ABWE since they hired a non-religious firm to take over the investigation so it would be difficult for ABWE to use that argument ex post facto.