QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

John Rankin:
Let me break there and make a quick announcement before we take some questions and answers, particularly for those of you who weren’t here last night or this morning. If any of you are interested in being on the mailing list for the Theological Education Institute, which I head up, TEI, I have forms here you can fill in afterwards.

I have with me a DVD from a recent Mars Hill Forum at Smith College. The topic was, “Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?,” with one of the top lesbian activists in the state, There were 500 folks there including about 300 lesbians. They were there basically to rake me over the coals. What was interesting was, that night like last time, I said that I honor all people as image bearers of God, no matter how much they disagree with me. I don’t want anymore freedom to say what I believe than I first give to those who disagree with me. And then I also said that I would willingly risk my life for anyone whose life was in danger, homosexual or otherwise, simply because they are made in God’s image. So I set that forth. During the Q&A, one woman and one man, both said like my interlocutor also said earlier in more explicit fashion, they said that by opposing same-sex marriage I was “doing violence” to them. So if I’m doing violence to them by disagreeing with them, they’re saying I have no liberty to disagree with them. But I didn’t respond in kind and say, well, if you disagree with me are you doing violence to me. Because I don’t fear that violence because Christ has died for me. My life and identity are in the Kingdom of God. My goal is to bring them that mercy. And I understand a lot of homosexuals have tremendous violation in their lives. And they’ve had violence and they’ve seen me as an image of that, as a white, heterosexual, male, evangelical, pro-life minister. Six strikes I’m out. And so I don’t want to respond to that with an attitude that would condemn them. But I said, does that mean that I am doing violence to you by simply disagreeing with you? And then I emphasized the Golden Rule of how I treat people. So what they’re trying to do is to get me angry. Because if I can get angry they can be angrier at me. That’s why Fred Phelps is loved by the homosexual activists in this nation, because they need someone to be angry at because of their own anger and brokenness.

And then, after the forum, a lawyer came up to me. He worked on the Supreme Judicial Court decision in Massachusetts calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage. The truth and consequences of that are about a month away. A lot is going to happen next month in Massachusetts, and I’m involved in that process. But anyhow, this lawyer, I gave him a card, we talked and so forth. He emailed me afterward from my website and he said, I think it’s very hateful, rude and arrogant for you to go from campus to campus speaking what you believe against same-sex marriage. Now imagine that on college campuses across the nation. I know very heavily the whole northeast corridor and the Ivy League campuses of the United States. Let me tell you, my position is heard very, very rarely. One meeting against a hundred thousand other opinions. And he was intimidated by the one person saying other than the given orthodoxy on the college campuses. You know what he was telling me to do? Shut up. So you see, even to make me angry on the one hand, or to intimidate me into silence on the other hand. And yet what is the biblical calling? It is to love those who hate you and it is not to be intimidated by hatred. It is to walk the balance beam of speaking the truth in love. That’s what I sought to do. And the response at Smith was absolutely wonderful.

Questioner:
I’m Christina. You used a phrase, heap burning coals on their head in a positive manner. I understand what that means, but would you define it for some people who might not?

John:
You know, I forget what it means. I did a lot of research in the Hebrew and Greek on that and realized there were two opinions. And I came up with a satisfactory answer but I forget what it is now. I think part of it is that you love your enemies, it will so confuse their nature that… You know, I don’t remember the Hebrew metaphor. Do you know something?

Christina:
My understanding from what I’ve read on it is that there are two views that I’ve heard. One is that it was a symbol of repentance. And so if you heap burning coals on their head, which historically for that time was a generous thing to do because if you had a fire, you’re not walking around with matches and lighters back then. So if you had a fire and you shared your burning coals, it was a positive thing. They would carry them to homes on their heads. And that’s how they transported this fire.

John:
Which is what Paul was saying, blessings or cursings.

Christina:
Right. And so you’re loving them by giving them some of your fire. The other side is slightly different in that it’s a sign of them showing repentance, that they’d walk around the city of something.

John:
You know something? Both two answers I looked up are both different from those two.

Christina:
Really?

John:
So I’m grateful for that. And I’ll have to revisit that. You email me. You’ve got my card? Email me and then I’ll research it out for you. You know, there’s another element that I could get into. When I was at a church in Monterey, California, there was a lesbian who was there on a debate on homosexuality as a gift of God. And a lawyer and her partner subsequently became head of the ACLU in California. She came down to the very end, she had three questions that were all meant to get me angry. And I didn’t do so. She went back up and I gave her the answers. And I left the answers open-ended. I said look, if these answers aren’t satisfactory please question me again. But she didn’t want answers, she just wanted to get me angry. That was the interpretation of the folks there as well. So I said to her, I said look, if your life were ever in jeopardy and I was in a position to risk my life to save it, I would do it like that. I would do it because that’s who Jesus Christ is to me. And I was told by the Christians sitting around her, she walked out in utter confusion. She came to get me to hate her but I said the opposite. In a sense I would say that’s part of heaping the burning coals. It really did confuse evil. It’s good to confuse evil so light can be seen more clearly.

Questioner:
I really want to thank you for your insight on this matter.

John:
And your name?

Questioner:
Ron.

John:
Hi Ron.

Ron:
For people that don’t know, Fred is a seventh-level or seventh-degree Calvinist. And he believes that he is a prophet of God. His purpose is the condemnation of the homosexual community. For those who don’t know that, that is the basis for why he does what he does even though it is striking. If God has condemned them, why does he have to say anything? But that’s another issue.

John:
[inaudible] I know he believes that, yet he has no patience for theological discourse unless it’s a very narrow...

Ron:
Absolutely zero, no tolerance whatsoever.

John:
Also, he’s not trained theologically.

Ron:
The question I have for you, and you were talking about enemies and things. Are you suggesting that we are trying to try to do anything with Mr. Phelps, or are you suggesting that what we need to deal with here is helping our friends and people that we love that may be in part of the gay community? Because I find it very difficult at understanding Mr. Phelps. An ordinance that was presented here, a year ago or so, Jim? Basically, the people that presented it, only one person was pro-homosexual in that group. All of them were anti-Fred. The ordinance was to be designed because they wanted to get Fred, not because they were necessarily pro-homosexual. A lot of people don’t know that. That’s in private meetings and stuff that I had information from persons in that. So the point here is that you are addressing it in our reaction to the gay community as compared to Fred who is somewhat inflexible in more ways than one.

John:
What I’m trying to do in the presentation that I gave you tonight, and speaking in this direction with one young woman here [inaudible]. That’s why I tried to aim in this direction. But my purpose in addressing this. Now I mentioned earlier that I invited myself to debate Fred Phelp’s in his church, but he didn’t want that in his own church. He wanted me to do it somewhere else here in town. But I don’t live here. I’m not the one to organize it. If the church in Topeka wanted me to do that, that’d be fine. I’d be glad to do it. I would structure it so he can’t interrupt me so there can actually be at least some attempt at communication. But that’s where my interest began because people told me how he pollutes the church with his witness. He is really a very convenient scapegoat for the militant homosexual community to lash at them. What I need to do, what we all need to do is speak the truth in love. So that’s what I sought to do. If you listen to what I said in these comments, I said a very clear “no” to homosexuality, but I said a very clear “yes” to their humanity of those who struggle with that and many other sins. And he doesn’t want such fine distinctions such as what Jesus comes with, which is to love our enemies and seek redemption.

So what do you do with Fred Phelps? Jim Congdon was saying to me that Topeka quite frankly is tired of him. And I think that’s fine to be tired of him. He’s getting old. How many years does he have to live? He’s about 75 right now. In a sense I think the best thing to do is simply to be proactive and speak the love of God. That’s what I was seeking to do here tonight in a modest capacity. When Jim Congdon emailed me after, it was your brother who first read this text, Jim said to me very graciously that I understood Fred Phelps where a lot of people don’t understand him. And that is he is an idolater of hate, for whatever reason. Hate is the elixir of his life and he’s made an idol out of that. He is serving a false god and he is serving a pagan deity. He is in fact – are you ready for this? – he is a son of hell as much as any person I’ve ever met in my life. And what is a son of hell? That’s Jesus’ words to the hypocrites in Matthew 23. He is hypocritical at fourteen levels I outlined today, inconsistent with the Scriptures. Now I can’t pass judgment on the destiny of his soul, though, boy oh boy oh boy, how can a man like that repent? But with God all things are possible. But still, the point is I can say honestly I’ve never met a person who is more a son of hell than Fred Phelps. So what we have to do in the face of hell is not curse hell, it is to let the light shine. So how do we translate that into specific things we can do. If anyone wanted to talk to me about details about how I would [inaudible]. But that’s what we’re called to do. We’re called to let the light shine.

Questioner:
My name is Kent. You may have answered the question, but following the ordinance that was just referred to by Ron there…

John:
And what does the ordinance say?

Kent:
It was a special rights ordinance by the city council to prohibit discrimination in housing and… It was kind of thrust upon the community with very little notice.

John:
So it’s not an equal rights issue for everyone, it’s a special rights issue?

Kent:
That’s correct.

John:
I’ve got you.

Kent:
There was a reaction to that in city council, rather rancorous, and of course the Phelps were there and others were there. The result of all that was that a lot of people found it hard to distinguish the sheep from the goats. We came to understand essentially that the real problem here has been that the church has been in the closet because of Phelps. There is an association of folks here locally trying to determine how to respond not only to the homosexual agenda but also Fred Phelps, and then try to draw the church out in attempts to distinguish basically the view that you articulated the last couple of evenings. And given that Fred holds himself out as a Christian we thought that something needed to be done directly with him. In other words if we were going to take a stance against him we needed to give him an opportunity. So a number of pastors went to him privately to ask him to explain himself, his doctrine, would he ever consider changing. Of course we didn’t expect an affirmative answers. We didn’t get one.

John:
But you honored him by giving him the opportunity.

Kent:
Right. In fact they’ve been there twice, and more recently just asked him one more time if he would change his approach.

John:
So really you’re pursuing Matthew 18?

Kent:
Exactly. And again, the thrust of the whole thing being is that you are essentially playing into the hands of the homosexual activists. Giving them every argument they need to get the ordinance. In fact in the recent debate in the Kansas Assembly, the marriage amendment, which was killed there, his name was brought up by the opponents of the amendment. So we’re left in a situation unique in the nation in Topeka, because the city is the state capitol, of how do we respond to him. There is some thought that perhaps we take out a public campaign against hate. In fact some of the folks from Focus on the Family have offered language basically dealing with this issue of being able to have discourse upon the topic of civility. Of course, everybody knows we’re talking about him where our campaign is against against hate. Others feel like, just forget him. Just leave him alone and maybe some day he’ll go away. Now he’s got a lot of kids. Some who are probably more violent than he, as you know.

John:
I didn’t quite know that because the communicating I’ve had with several of them indicated not complete certainty in what they believe. As long as he’s alive they will say what they say, but once he is not alive I actually hope for some of them.

Kent:
Right. I think there is a spectrum there from black sheep to maybe even more strident. And so it is a legitimate question for us here in Topeka. How do you respond and what recommendation would you have for the best possible response given our peculiar circumstances?

John:
Well, let me give a theological perspective first, and I’ll be preaching on this at a far deeper level tomorrow morning. And that is my contention, rooted in Genesis, and I’ll talk about how Jesus dealt with his enemies in Matthew 21 and 22. It is called the radical nature of a level playing field. That good prospers when evil is allowed to have a level playing field. But evil will never allow goodness to have a level playing field. And so the way we respond to hate is not by cursing, but rather actually by letting it be revealed for what it is. So how can we do something that is wise as a serpent but innocent as a dove in this context? There are many ways to go about it. But let me tell you, I’m working behind the scenes in Massachusetts right now. And either we’ll get the attention of one of three key political leaders, or we’ll raise a hundred grand and take out two ads in the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. And I’ve never raised anywhere near that money, but I think the time is right. You know, same-sex marriage is scheduled to become legal on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. So now we have Boston and Topeka tied together. And that’s the attempt to link same-sex marriage rights with civil rights. It was done deliberately. So what has to happen, and this is a parallel context and I’ll come back to the specifics that you raise. What has to happen in Massachusetts is the Governor is given explicit constitutional authority in all matters of marriage, not the court. And he could actually overrule it by executive fiat, but politically it’s a very scary thing to do. Because most legislators are fearful of the Supreme Judicial Court, as much of the country is fearful of court power. But there is no constitutional authority for the court to ever tell the Governor or Legislature to do anything. In fact, the Constitution says that the Governor, or his council, or the House, or the Senate, any of them on their own initiative, may require of the Supreme Judicial Court an opinion on important matters of law or upon some Solemn Assemblies. This means either one of those four authorities -- the Speaker of the House or the Governor would be the two most likely people to want to initiate this -- could actually call the members of the Supreme Judicial Court to a public hearing investigating Constitutional Convention of the House and Senate together, and ask them two overwhelming questions. Number 1, how can you tell the Legislature to rule on matters of marriage when the Constitution says the Governor has that authority? That’s question number 1. Number 2, how can you call same-sex marriage an unalienable right (which they do) when the source of unalienable rights is the God of the Bible? Don’t you need to discard articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Human Rights, which refers to God, unalienable rights, in order for you to do this? You know something, they would be furious if they had to come and answer a Constitutional Convention in public. They could actually make themselves impeachable by refusing to answer. But the point is that a level playing field where they can not sit high in the sixteenth floor, actually it’s tall, about a 24-story building overlooking the state dome, and rule without any kind of [inaudible] whatsoever. So this is my strategy. However, what I’d like to see happen, I don’t know if it’s time, but a friend of mine who is a state rep, you know, introduce the following non-binding resolution (now we’re getting to a parallel for me to start thinking about Topeka), and this is the way of defanging it. Most of the legislators in Massachusetts who are wavering is because the homosexual activists are putting incredible pressure on them, and saying that if you don’t legalize same-sex marriage you are a homophobe, you are a bigot, you’re opposing our fundamental rights, though they won’t define the source and nature of rights. And intimidation is great. So we’re getting a copy of the video of this forum [Mars Hill Forum #82 at Smith College] to as many legislators as we can to show that yes, you can speak difference with graciousness. That’s the pastoral angle of what I have. And consistent with that, I would like to see the following non-binding resolution introduced. This is how it would go in the way I’ve drafted it. We could come up with a non-binding resolution for the Kasas state Legislature as well.

“In accord with the provisions of Part the First, Articles 5 and 7 (this is ancient language) of the Massachusetts Constitution, we the General Court (that’s their word for the Legislature) celebrate (now listen to how radical this is; Fred Phelps will go off the deep end when he hears this) we celebrate the liberty of same-sex marriage advocates to seek changes in the laws of the Commonwealth. (I’m saying this.) We affirm their equal citizenship in this matter as we do for all citizens who might seek any and all other changes. By the same token we believe in the rule of law where such changes happen by the consent of the governed and not by judicial imposition.”

Now that is what the Supreme Judicial Court is doing. They are imposing themselves. I have such confidence in the radical nature of a level playing field, where both sides are heard equally, we will prevail. And so what we can do? So when I say this, “we celebrate the liberties of same-sex marriage advocates,” how can they object to us on that one? We’re celebrating not same-sex marriage and homosexuality, but their personhood and their liberties to argue what they want to, as I said last night as well. So if we constructed something contextually appropriate here in Kansas, whether in Topeka or whether for the Legislature that talks about celebrating the liberty for people to dissent on this matter, but then put boundaries of how it happens, and put Fred Phelps in the same context and basically lay out a level playing field. I’d have to think this out some more. I think we could actually come up with language that would be very attractive to people on both sides. In fact, I’m overwhelmingly convinced in my twenty years involved in ministry, that I’ve never found anyone who disagrees with me on matters of theology or politics disagree with me on the idea of a level playing field. And you know why? Those who disagree don’t do public forums with me. Gloria Steinem won’t do it, OK? There’s many other people who won’t do it. For every person who accepts an invitation to a forum there are five to ten who don’t, because they don’t want a level playing field. So if we define the level playing field I believe that people with any self-respect will respond to it. We could do something in such a way where Fred Phelps censors himself and distances himself from we who say “no” to homosexuality while affirming the humanity of all people equally. I’m convinced it’s a way that will strengthen marriage. And if you did something like that you could then move more sentiment to our side toward a marriage amendment. Do you have a DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] in this state? Then OK, you don’t have quite that need, but you may have some other needs. So that’s how I think you could go along with, but there’s lots of specifics I’d have to work through. I don’t know if that helps.

Questioner:
My name is David. I have believed for quite awhile, ever since I’ve been in town last year, that Mr. Phelps is getting money from white supremacy groups. I have told this to… I lobby on homeless issues over at the capitol building. Six months ago I saw a piece on 60 Minutes where it says a good percentage of hate groups are linked to white supremacy groups. Then two months ago I see a advertisement in the paper where the Daughters of the American Revolution meet over at Westboro Baptist every month. Well, last month I watched the movie Ghosts of the Mississippi on the death of Medgar Evers. And then in 1987, the DA investigated the Sons of the American Revolution. It made me want to think that maybe his group is forced to act the way it does by the money he receives.

John:
Well, this much I will say in the reading I did on it. And maybe you know better than I. Those linkages have been proposed for many years. Tom?

Tom:
As I understand it, back years ago Fred Phelps actually was a champion for civil rights for blacks. I read in the paper some years ago there was a huge article about him and the history of Fred Phelps. At that time he actually got awards from the NAACP for working for civil rights for black people.

John:
He did, but when he got disbarred as a lawyer for cheating black clients, among others, the stuff I saw showed he was an opportunist. He basically cultivated political ties, and he ran for Governor a couple of times, I guess. In cultivating political ties in the name of justice, but he wasn’t doing any justice. He was simply making money as a lawyer anyway he could to support what he was doing. But I also read that there were many alleged, and that’s all I could say, linkages with hate groups. But this is what I will say theologically, not knowing any more data than that, is, hate groups by definition are fearful. They are fearful of people who are different from them. And they obviously don’t love God because they are trafficking in hate. And the one thing that I see in Fred Phelps is, homosexuality is merely going back about 13 years, it is merely an excuse and a great place to spew his hate. I think he did take up a website, www.godhatesamerica.com. I think I did hear that at one point. So, the bottom line is that he is an idolater of hate.

David:
There’s a lot of caricature on his website.

John:
I have heard that as well. My summation, again, not knowing some of the details, and what I read was good stuff, but again, I’m not a native here so I don’t know a lot of the language. But everything I’ve seen theologically is this guy is an idolater of hate. And so he is an equal opportunity hater. And he will align with other haters as well if it makes his ego and self-righteousness, or seventh-level Calvinism. I’ve never heard that before. I guess that must be like a 33rd degree Mason in terms of intensity of conviction. And I don’t think Calvin would be pleased by being called a Calvinist. John Calvin admitted he had difficulty with the doctrine of freedom, and when he looked at predestination, he said what should I do with this wretched doctrine? He thought it was wretched but he didn’t have a better answer for it. I could give an answer but that would take more time than I have right now. So I hope that’s helpful.

David:
I have a whole bunch of things. When I went to college several years ago I was taught in technical writing class that if I am going to present a problem I need a solution to that problem as well. Fred Phelps is good about the problem but he doesn’t present a solution.

John:
And I can’t even say he is good about the problem. It is very easy to point out evil, to rail about it and make evil worse. That’s what he’s doing.

David:
Well, that’s something I also want to talk about. Two months ago I heard on the news that he traveled to San Francisco.

John:
He travels all over the place.

David:
Yes, I know that. And right after he traveled to San Francisco, that’s when all those gay marriages happened. I believe that Fred Phelps is shooting himself in the foot. I don’t know if he tries to cause it.

John:
I think he is. Because he says, listen, they’re all going to hell regardless, and it’s my duty to go and tell them they’re going to hell. I mean, that’s his theology in a nutshell. He doesn’t give a blankety blank about whether or not he speeds it along. If he speeds it along I think he has a perverse self-satisfaction. See, hate is a tonic and a drug for him. And the more he can get in the face of hating and being hated back, the more perversely happy he is. Which is when I talk about bitterness and self-righteousness stewing in the juices [inaudible] It is to me the moral nature of hell profiled by Fred Phelps in this idolatry of hate.

David:
Is there any mention of gays in the Bible?

John:
Gay is a modern political term that homosexual persons might call themselves happy. Homosexuality is brought out a number of times in the Bible. What the Bible does mainly is it says man and woman in marriage and shows those who live outside of it.

David:
As far as specific people performing the act?

John:
An individual as a homosexual, no, not that I know of. It simply says in Leviticus that man may not sleep with man as with a woman. In Sodom and Gomorrah… See, here’s the interesting thing. The deeper issue is not homosexuality, it’s pan-sexuality, sex with anything, anywhere, anyhow you want to outside of marriage. Sodom and Gomorrah, you had a city so taken over by evil. You take the 24 diagnostic passages of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, it’s summed up by three clauses: political lawlessness for the sake of sexual lawlessness for the elitists, as a result of which the poor and the needy get trampled. That’s what it’s all about. And so the men who surrounded Lot’s house were all probably married men. They were there with their adult sons wanting to gang rape these two presumably male visitors. And so that’s not just homosexuality, that’s pan-sexuality. That’s perversion. And so that was what the Bible is diagnosing, and then homosexuality is one element in pan-sexuality which gains definition. But there is no person who is defined in name that I know of. In the Bible, no, there is none [inaudible].

David:
Because I lobby on homeless issues, I like to try and find homes. I have seen a lot of lesbians who are homeless. I don’t see any male gays, but I do see a lot of female lesbians who are homeless. I don’t know if the connection should be made or not. I don’t have any data to back that up.

John:
I know that lesbians live longer because they don’t have as many sexually transmitted diseases or as severe diseases. They both have tremendous alcoholism and drug abuse. Lesbians are far more educated on average than the average American. More educated on average than male homosexuals. But I think part of the fact is that as women, you know that 95 to 98 percent of all homosexuals have got substantial heterosexual experience. And many of your lesbians are divorced women with children. And divorced women with children and they have no one to support them, then the possibility of homelessness increases. But I’m just thinking out aloud.

David:
May I give a quick plug to the homeless?

John:
Yes.

David:
OK, quickly, thank you for your patience. You’ve talked to someone who was homeless before, haven’t you?

John:
And I’ve been homeless.

David:
You’ve been homeless?

John:
Twice. After a pro-life group I headed up went bankrupt I lost two and a half years of income, and moved eleven times in ten years with four children. Because I couldn’t recover from the financial devastation of thirteen years ago.

David:
You had to sleep beneath a bridge?

John:
No, but six of us had to sleep on an apartment floor for a month once. And then finally when we bought a house, we were dealt with dishonestly and for two months we had to move around from house to house.

David:
The last homeless person that you actually talked with, did you ever ask where his family was at?

John:
Oh, the families are uninvolved.

David:
Well, I am trying to promote the use of family as the real resource for the homeless. I would like to get the homeless missions to go to their clients and say, hey, where’s your family?

John:
Bottom line reality is this:

David:
Lesbians and gays too because they don’t like to contact their families, too.

John:
The overwhelming reality of social brokenness is when the father is not married to the mother. Seventy to ninety percent of all men incarcerated for felonies have no history of a present and loving father, in terms of any substantial reality. And so what happens is, homelessness and poverty and drug abuse and homosexuality and heterosexual promiscuity are overwhelmingly tied to not having a loving mom and dad at home who love each other and love the children as young children. So when you get into homelessness and psychological problems and the alcohol abuse problems and the drug abuse problems, you are talking about the brokenness of man and woman in marriage. And so what happens is, so many of the homeless people do not have a home they can go to.

David:
That’s not true.

John:
Oh, really? Well, I’m sorry. My experience in Hartford is that the families that they do have when they have them, don’t want to be responsible for them.

David:
Well, you don’t know how many family reunions I’ve been a part of here in Topeka, by just going to a homeless mission and handing them my cell phone and pushing them to use it. They’re home in two days. I could tell you four different stories where, well, this one individual his family [inaudible] nine years [inaudible] and his family thought he was dead. He was in prison and he never let his family know where he was at. Can I talk to you later about it? I don’t want to take up your time.

John:
Obviously that bespeaks to a history of brokenness, but all I would say, you know a lot more about this than I do, and at any juncture you can reconcile members to their family then that’s fantastic.

David:
I could make anyone an expert on homelessness right now by just encouraging you guys, whenever you see a homeless guy, encourage them to pick up a phone, he’ll be home in two days. All he’s gotta say on the phone is can I come home for awhile?

John:
I would be interested in learning more about that. Because my experience of it is far more modest, is that I can see that happening in some cases, in many cases they have no one to call, or no one will receive the call.

David:
In that case, then, they need to be re-encouraged to seek out new relationships.

John:
And the church must be that. Stanley?

Stanley:
In the beginning none of the Phelps family were here. [inaudible] to give them the first shot. No one showed up.

John:
Did they protest tonight?

Voices in audience:
No.

John:
They protested last night.

Stanley:
I never saw them.

John:
Someone said they were out in [inaudible]. Let me just pull out what they said on the website about me, “7 Hard Questions for Heretic Rankin.”

“WBC to (briefly) picket Rev. John Rankin, wannabe debater, shallow, superficial heretic pandering to Topeka’s Arminian clergy. WU’s Henderson Hall 100, 7 p.m., April 16…” (Well, nobody showed up here.) “… in religious protest & warning: ‘God is not mocked!’ God Hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates Rankin, Kindle, & all their sponsors.”

So that was his complementary profile of me and his agenda. But the point is, and that’s why I shared with you my email at the beginning to Margie [Phelps], I said “What fun!” That probably upset them [inaudible], but I think it’s fun. But I’m not intimidated by it. And then I said, listen, you’re the one who calls me “wannabe.” Your father is a coward because he would not do a forum or debate in his own church. I was going to come in the midst of your strength and let you rake me over the coals with any questions you have, and I don’t want to know them ahead of time. So it does belie really who they are.

Stanley:
Not showing up here tonight sends me quite a message. The man is a coward.

John:
And the only reason I was interested in that debate of coming here and doing that is because I knew his children might also come. And I want to reach out to the children and give them a chance to ask the toughest… They asked me a thousand questions by email. The problem is that takes a lot of time. I said, listen, come, let’s do a debate in your church and I will answer every question you want, as long as my body can stay awake. But they don’t want to do it.

Stanley:
I think I see some of the wisdom that’s available [inaudible]. It tells you he obviously thinks he won the debate in Casper.

John:
Of course he does. But he doesn’t want to debate the substance.

Stanley:
By not showing up here tonight, it’s a very strong message.

John:
OK. Well thank you so much, those of you who endured a little bit past the schedule, which is nothing new. And have a good evening. God bless.
[audience applause]

CONTENTS