Exactly. Frankly, they screwed this one up badly. Take the article down. Full retraction. Deep apology to the Elliot family. And a commitment to focus on issues that matter to the evangelical community. It's so obvious, but they aren't doing it. They're doubling down, and it's just stupid. They deserve what they get.
Understanding the history of an established church is critically important, especially as a new pastor. You inherit the story the day you arrive, whether you know it or not. The past explains the present. Why does the congregation flinch when you mention a building project? Why does one family carry so much weight in business meetings? Why is there a strange tension around the old fellowship hall? Why is that scary-looking guyโs portrait on the wall? The answers are almost always historical. https://t.co/sSVxKlXhgd
I read her comments previously. First, your article amounted to nothing more than an academic "thought exercise." If you were teaching in a seminary and wanted to explore the idea of Elliot being bisexual with students in a classroom, fine, whatever. But the article was published in a (what is now a former) prestigious magazine as if there is validity to the claim (made by someone who was clearly out to sully Elliot's name). Second, the hyper-focus on sexuality is a strange obsession of the left. It's just weird. If you had uncovered seductive love letters between Elliot and Mollenkott, then hit publish. But there's almost nothing here. Just one claim by a dead embittered lesbian. And concerning her private papers that make this whole scenario "plausible" to you, they involve a common question about the relationship between David and Jonathan, which many young people question when encountering the text. It doesn't prove anything, just that she's working through the text like many, many others. And she wasn't questioning anything about herself. It was a friend. If logical long jumping was a sport, you'd be an Olympic gold medalist.