After the visit of SoulForce outside Bethany Lutheran College, there were many “Your View” letters condemning Bethany Lutheran College for not accepting the demand of SoulForce to have an open dialogue about homosexuality on campus.

An open dialogue is a meeting between people with different, often opposite, viewpoints. And what is the purpose of such an open dialogue? Usually it’s more than just for sharing ideas or just for better understanding of the other side; rather, when one side seeks an open dialogue with the other side, they are hoping to convince the other side to change their view, especially when a liberal side wants an open dialogue with a conservative side.

But, in an open dialogue between conservative and liberal, isn’t it usually necessary (or, at least expected) that the conservative side has to loosen up rather than the liberal side tighten up, especially when it’s the liberal side wanting the dialogue? But, if SoulForce expected Bethany Lutheran College to be open to changing their view to that of SoulForce, was SoulForce just as open to changing their view to that of Bethany Lutheran College?

Was SoulForce just as willing to become less liberal and more conservative, to change not only their viewpoint but also their lifestyle? I doubt it.

And yet once more, who are portrayed as the bad guys, the criminals? Why are conservatives condemned for being conservative? Maybe being conservative counts for something only when it refers to the environment.

Tom Zahn

St. Peter