Ok, a lot of people are concerned about my internship thing. Let me make something clear: I am only going by what I've read in the Fuller handbook. I haven't spoken to the people in charge yet. This may not be a big deal to them (I'm told that people in the other schools have had gay supervisors). But if that is so, I would still question why it's in the supervisor handbook.
So nobody's actually told me I couldn't have the placement. The handbook says supervisors are expected to "adhere" to the community standards. The community standards state specifically that homosexual behavior is "unbiblical" and forbidden. Therefore, we (me and the potential sup) inferred that she would not be permitted to supervise me. She was happy to go with a "don't ask don't tell" attitude, but upon reading the handbook she felt that wasn't offered as an option, and upon my reading, I agreed. I completely am right there with you guys - it seems really "un-Fuller" to me.
Regardless of whether they determine I can work with her, it is quite confusing for students and potential supervisors to have that right there in the supervisor handbook. I'm actually really surprised (happily so) to learn that this might not be a big deal. Maybe I help have the handbook changed so this doesn't confuse others in the future.
It's ridiculously hot here in thh computer room so I'm stopping now.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah--I'd definetly recommend conversation with a real live person on this before pulling out the heavy artillery.
Agree with above.
Also, this latest post doesn't have ANY of the concern about making it impossible for Episcopalians to intern at an Episcopalian church that I thought I was reading earlier. Have I misread you?
As I commented in an earlier post, my research into the matter since this all started leads me to believe that they'll have no problem letting someone have a supervisor who doesn't accept Fuller's teaching on homosexuality. I do think they might have an issue with an supervisor who actually happens to be homosexual, though, which is what we're talking about now.
Please keep us posted.
It's not that I don't have ANY concern any more, I've just mellowed. The way the blog works is that I write in the heat of the moment and then I try to write again when I've thought through things. Other people wait until they're rational to write but I prefer a stream of consciousness. This blog is my major outlet for venting.
Also I spoke to someone at an Epis church yesterday who was also quite disturbed by this news - she didn't say it was a deal-breaker for her, but it's upsetting to anyone in our denom who's inclusive.
Upsetting to those who are inclusive, perhaps. But I still maintain that I do not believe that Fuller will prevent someone from being a supervisor just because that supervisor believes that Fuller's stance on homosexuality is wrong. I've not seen this responded to, and wondered if we're talking at cross-purposes.
Look, whether they allow it or not, it says right in their handbook which is online for everyone to see that supervisor are expected to adhere to community standards! I am just going by the book. If they make exceptions, so be it, but shouldn't they just change the confusing handbook in the first place, if they are not going to abide by it?
But that's just it. It's not an exception if a straight supervisor believes that Fuller is wrong on homosexuality. It's a disagreement on that issue, but not a violation of the community standards. The standards legislate behavior, not beliefs.
But I don't see how that applies. The supervisor is gay.
In one of your previous posts, you accused Fuller of cutting out anyone in your denomination who wanted an internship. I suggested that this would not be the actual case. I've admitted that this would not help for this particular internship, but wanted to clarify if your understanding about Fuller's position re: the whole Episcopalian church might not have been mistaken. That point has yet to be acknowledged.
What I actually said is that an Episcopalian may not feel comfortable signing or adhereing to a set of community standards that are in conflict with their church's beliefs. In the diocese of Los Angeles, for the most part, homosexual sex is not considered "unbiblical" behavior. Thus, Fuller is asking us to go against the teachings of our own churches.
Sure, a supervisor could still sign it, but I wonder if she would. It would be like if it said you must own slaves to be a supervisor, and say the supervisor herself doesn't own slaves, but she thinks that it's so wrong to own them that she wouldn't want to affiliate with a school that puts forth that belief.
Likewise, Fuller holding to a belief about homosexuals that is behind the times as far as several churches and certainly society in general is concerned may hurt the school. Fuller needs to decide if it's going to let students abide by their church's/denomination's standards or by Fuller's.
Post a Comment