Dreams From My Teachers

An anonymous blog run by friends of the college for Professors, Staff, and Teachers of Gordon College who want to share their thoughts yet don't feel they can... To submit a blog post: Go to gmail and sign into: [email protected] (Password: stilldreaming). Create a new message, paste your blog post into the body, and send it to: [email protected] Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent the views of Gordon College.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Senate Resigns, DML Responds, and a Faculty Member Has Questions

The following is an anonymous letter from a Gordon College faculty member, responding to D. Michael Lindsay’s email regarding Faculty Senate Members resigning on Wednesday, April 5, 2017. The story on Senate resignation can be found on the Tartan website, and Michael’s original email, dated Friday, April 7, 2017, can be found under this response:

Letter from anonymous faculty member:

Dear faculty colleagues, A month ago, Janel Curry and I met with the Faculty Senate at their request. . In the course of that meeting, we discussed the tenure and promotion process.  I came away from that meeting believing that we had a positive and productive exchange.----The Senate has since stated publicly that you said at the meeting that you were not "constrained" by the Faculty-Administrative Handbook. That you could feel positive about a meeting during which you were called out for claiming to play by different rules than everyone else in the room is shocking. We agreed that Senate would have further related conversations with the Provost and keep me apprised of their discussions.  I was grateful that Senate Chair Ivy George sent me a couple of updates after we met; even last week, her email indicated that their discussions were ongoing  At no time did she or other Senators request additional clarification from me and I never sensed that there was a scenario whereby the Senate would conclude that common ground was no longer possible.----The senators indicated they resigned due to the clarity of your actions and words; senators have not indicated that there was any lack of clarity. I was, therefore, quite surprised to learn just a few hours  before faculty meeting that all members of the Senate had decided to resign. I was also disappointed that Faculty Senate rejected my request for further conversation before their decision became final.----Perhaps the senators determined there was no point in issuing an ultimatum. I know the Provost intends to send a note to the faculty in the near future about her perspective on the situation, but because an offhanded comment became a key area for concern, I want to clarify what was said and what was meant by what was said.----That you do not feel constrained by the administrative-faculty handbook is a matter of supreme importance, though perhaps admitting it was unintentional. As I recall the conversation, someone asked if the administration was still adhering to the handbook criteria for faculty evaluations of teaching, scholarship, and service. I affirmed that we were.  I then stated something to the effect of, “Of course, the administrative reviews of faculty candidates—at hiring and in all reviews—are holistic in nature.” A couple of Senators asked if this was something new or different in the review process, and I clarified that nothing different was taking place.----Are you suggesting the Senate resigned because six or seven Senators don't understand plain English and because the provost in follow-up discussions with senators also did not realize what you meant by "unconstrained"? Although I did not state it then, I believe it was President Emeritus Carlberg who first used that term with me as we talked about how evaluations are done at Gordon.  “This is not a ‘check box’ kind of faculty evaluation culture,” I remember him saying.----Jud fostered a culture of true shared governance, one radically different from today's at Gordon. And, indeed, as we talked, members of the Senate agreed that promotion and tenure decisions are not made on the basis of faculty colleagues’ checking off a prescribed set of expectations.----That you would suggest the senate's evaluation could consist of the checking off of boxes is insulting in the extreme to men and women who put many hours into weighing each promotion request  and who make courageous decisions that risk alienating colleagues and friends. We recognize that markers of scholarly excellence differ by field and that evaluating institutional service and teaching necessitates an approach that is not necessarily one-size- fits-all.  By the end of our discussion, I thought we had reached a shared understanding of what I meant by the term and did not give it any further thought.----Once again, the senators lacked sufficient intelligence to know both what you meant by "constrained" and what you intended in follow-up remarks? I have since learned that Senators continued to wonder if there was something further meant by my comment.   After six years on the job, I trust you know by now that I say what I mean and I mean what I say.----Quite to the contrary, if faculty members believed you or Janel, Gordon would not have many of its current problems. Any leader who has to remind people that he always tells the truth must know deep down that people doubt  he always  tells the truth. In fact, the provost told faculty assembled for an emergency meeting the day following the senate resignation that you often speak without sufficient consideration and in doing so create problems for cabinet. But since the Senators’ resignation letter suggested there might be extraneous considerations at work, let me be very clear: there are no new criteria for evaluating promotion and tenure candidates, and I am 100% confident that all evaluations that I have made or approved throughout my time at Gordon have been based on assessments in accordance with the standards in the Administrative/Faculty Handbook. The Provost or I may not always agree with how the Senate applies those standards, but it can be expected that thoughtful evaluators may reach different conclusions from time to time.----Presumably seven senators would not have resigned had they shared this assessment.

When I was named Gordon’s president, I requested the chance to meet with two groups in advance of the campus announcement—the Cabinet and the Faculty Senate.  I have always appreciated the important role of the Senate, and over the last six years, I’ve had numerous discussions on ways to expand or enhance the role of the Senate among our faculty.----If you are calling for an expanded role, please share those specifics publicly soon. So I very much hope that we can find a way to work together in collaborative and valuable forms of shared governance.----You could begin by honoring the existing principles of shared governance.

  I respect and admire every colleague who has served this year on Senate.  They each bring a unique set of gifts and experiences, and I am very grateful for their years of service to Gordon and to our students.  Even though I am sad that several of them will not complete their terms as elected Senators, I look forward to working with each of them in the days ahead as we jointly work to advance the mission of Gordon College.----"Several" of them did not resign. All of them resigned.  Don't try to downplay the significance. In closing, thank you for all that you do to serve our students.  As Roger Green aptly put it a couple of years ago, “the faculty are Gordon College,” and indeed, you are what make Gordon such a special place.----You are failing to include the rest of Roger's remarks delivered at the very occasion he uttered that one you remark. Roger expressed dismay at the diminished status of faculty under your presidency. For my full-time faculty colleagues, I look forward to thanking you in person for all that you do at the Bright Monday Appreciation Brunch right after Easter. And to my part-time colleagues, I look forward to expressing my appreciation at a special reception the Board of Trustees and I will be hosting right before Commencement.

Letter from D. Michael Lindsay, dated Friday, April 7, 2017.

Dear faculty colleagues,

A month ago, Janel Curry and I met with the Faculty Senate at their request.  In the course of that meeting, we discussed the tenure and promotion process.  I came away from that meeting believing that we had a positive and productive exchange.

We agreed that Senate would have further related conversations with the Provost and keep me apprised of their discussions.  I was grateful that Senate Chair Ivy George sent me a couple of updates after we met; even last week, her email indicated that their discussions were ongoing.  At no time did she or other Senators request additional clarification from me, and I never sensed that there was a scenario whereby the Senate would conclude that common ground was no longer possible.  I was, therefore, quite surprised to learn just a few hours before faculty meeting that all members of the Senate had decided to resign.  I was also disappointed that Faculty Senate rejected my request for further conversation before their decision became final.  I know the Provost intends to send a note to the faculty in the near future about her perspective on the situation, but because an offhanded comment that I made apparently became a key area for concern, I want to clarify what was said and what was meant by what was said.

As I recall the conversation, someone asked if the administration was still adhering to the handbook criteria for faculty evaluations of teaching, scholarship, and service.  I affirmed that we were.  I then stated something to the effect of, “Of course, the administrative reviews of faculty candidates—at hiring and in all reviews—are holistic in nature.”  A couple of Senators asked if this was something new or different in the review process, and I clarified that nothing different was taking place.  Although I did not state it then, I believe it was President Emeritus Carlberg who first used that term with me as we talked about how evaluations are done at Gordon.  “This is not a ‘check box’ kind of faculty evaluation culture,” I remember him saying.  And, indeed, as we talked, members of the Senate agreed that promotion and tenure decisions are not made on the basis of faculty colleagues’ checking off a prescribed set of expectations.  We recognize that markers of scholarly excellence differ by field and that evaluating institutional service and teaching necessitates an approach that is not necessarily one-size-fits-all.  By the end of our discussion, I thought we had reached a shared understanding of what I meant by the term and did not give it any further thought.

I have since learned that Senators continued to wonder if there was something further meant by my comment.  After six years on the job, I trust you know by now that I say what I mean and I mean what I say.  But since the Senators’ resignation letter suggested there might be extraneous considerations at work, let me be very clear: there are no new criteria for evaluating promotion and tenure candidates, and I am 100% confident that all evaluations that I have made or approved throughout my time at Gordon have been based on assessments in accordance with the standards in the Administrative/Faculty Handbook.  The Provost or I may not always agree with how the Senate applies those standards, but it can be expected that thoughtful evaluators may reach different conclusions from time to time.

When I was named Gordon’s president, I requested the chance to meet with two groups in advance of the campus announcement—the Cabinet and the Faculty Senate.  I have always appreciated the important role of the Senate, and over the last six years, I’ve had numerous discussions on ways to expand or enhance the role of the Senate among our faculty.  And I continue to believe that a highly effective Senate facilitates the flourishing of our faculty.  So I very much hope that we can find a way to work together in collaborative and valuable forms of shared governance.

I respect and admire every colleague who has served this year on Senate.  They each bring a unique set of gifts and experiences, and I am very grateful for their years of service to Gordon and to our students.  Even though I am sad that several of them will not complete their terms as elected Senators, I look forward to working with each of them in the days ahead as we jointly work to advance the mission of Gordon College.

In closing, thank you for all that you do to serve our students.  As Roger Green aptly put it a couple of years ago, “the faculty are Gordon College,” and indeed, you are what make Gordon such a special place.  For my full-time faculty colleagues, I look forward to thanking you in person for all that you do at the Bright Monday Appreciation Brunch right after Easter.  And to my part-time colleagues, I look forward to expressing my appreciation at a special reception the Board of Trustees and I will be hosting right before Commencement (be on the lookout for more details in the next week or two).

Blessings,

Michael

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Five Years is Enough

More than five years ago, the College's trustees chose as President an untenured Professor who oversaw a small institute at Rice University. The new President had almost no experience exercising leadership. He was very good at sucking up to people in power, but had never been in power.

Five years ago this week, D. Michael Lindsay took over as President of the College. His term has been a disaster. Maybe the Trustees do not know how bad things are. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they are too proud to undo the damage they caused in making a poor choice.

President Lindsay has chastised employees who seek to speak with trustees about anything.

So to the trustees and anyone else who care, here's a list of D. Michael Lindsay's failures.

Took job he wasn't in the least bit prepared for.

Overstated qualifications for job.

Demanded and planned disgusting coronation for installation as President.

Drove away qualified individuals with institutional knowledge and broad respect at Gordon and in community (Mark Sargent, Barry Loy and others).

Hired vice president for student life with no qualifications for job.

Professionally punished female employee who became pregnant while engaged to be married.

Summoned faculty, staff and student to his office for berating after they publicly questioned his decisions.

Allowed or encouraged chairman of Board of Trustees to lambaste female faculty member for failing to fall in line with President Lindsay.

Drove away key faculty and staff  disgusted with his values and ambitions (Tal Howard, Stephen Smith, Tim Freguson-Sauder).

Used college funds to buy silence of departing employees by paying a year's salary in return for them pledging in writing to say nothing derogatory about the college or President Lindsay. (Dear Trustees, please interview faculty who exited and allow them to violate these agreements; you will get an earful.)

Recklessly signed letter to Obama White House thinking it would never become public.

Diminished Gordon athletic programs by taking actions that led to boycotts of Gordon by former competitors.

Destroyed Gordon in Lynn program by using lawyers to threaten School Committee members with legal action.

Destroyed History Alive program by ruining relationship with City of Salem.

Jeopardized future of education program by straining ties with many local school departments.

Presided over major decline in academic ability of new students.

Presided over dishonest, sneaky process for updating core curriculum.

Harshly criticized employees who exposed the College's intent to defy the intent of the donor of the Vining Collection.

Publicly disclosed confidential Faculty Senate proceedings in news media coverage of Lauren Barthold's lawsuit.

Made it harder for Gordon graduates to get jobs.

The Lindsay exodus:

Rini Cobbey

Rita Smith Dove

Roger Green

Ryan Groff

Tim Ferguson-Sauder

Ron Hilton

Agnes Howard

Tal Howard

Judith Oleson

Moises Park

Gregor Thuswaldner

Pamela Thuswaldner

Ann Smith

Stephen Smith

Liesl Smith

Jim Trent

Emmanuelle Vanborre

Val Buchanan

Toddy Burton

Tanja Butler

Greg Carmer

Martha Crain

Justin Edwards

Brian Glenney

Susan Kim

Katie Knudsen

Keith Krass

Suzanne Phillips

Michael Monroe

Dan Russ

LeQuez Spearman

Justin Topp

Nate Baxter

Joel Boyd

Tom Brooks

Susan Brooks

Jo Kadlecek

Barry Loy

Paul Maurer

Joyce Meeuwsen

Ryan Plosker

Dwight Tshudy

Steve Brinton

Casey Cooper

Janice Holton

Kejun Song

Sandy Butters

Mia Chung

Lawrence Holcomb

Mark Sargent

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Gabe Lyons, Wilberforce, and an Erroneous Example

Last week at Gordon College’s Convocation, Gabe Lyons (of the Q conference) came to speak.  He began by bemoaning the reputation of the Church, that we are so widely known in this culture for hating homosexuals.  Any hope generated by this opening was quickly to be dashed, however. Lyons went on to encourage Gordon students to have courage to stand up for “our” “Biblical” view on homosexuality.  “Don’t be afraid,” he urged, “to stand up for your convictions.” He seemed to have no recognition that “we” do not all agree, or that there is more than one “Biblical” view.

He then lifted up the example of William Wilberforce, a man who, with the courage of his convictions, stood up against the practice of slavery, defying the larger culture. In the same way, Gordon students should have the courage to articulate the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.  Mr. Lyons appears to not know his history very well, or to not understand the power of historical parallels.  After the horrific and long-standing history of the Church reading the Bible in one particular way, supporting the institution of slavery and the subjugation of people of color, Mr. Wilberforce had the courage and conviction to read the Bible in a new way, to understand that our identity as image bearers trumps any movement to treat a groups of people as less-than, or not quite human. Wilberforce pointed out the Church’s longstanding and hurtful misapplication of the “traditional” reading of the text and argued that we needed a new understanding going forward, one which uplifts all people and calls all to love. If only we would all follow his courageous example.

~Anonymous Staff/Faculty 

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Leading Evangelical Ethicist, David Gushee, changes his mind on LGBT acceptance in the Church. 

For Christians, the LGBT debate has always been framed as a question of sexual ethics. Our argument has centered on six or seven biblical passages that appear to mention homosexuality negatively or appear to establish a heterosexual norm: the sin of Sodom, the laws of Leviticus and the list of “the unrighteous” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. For most of my career, these ideas formed the foundation of my views and teachings as an evangelical minister and professor of Christian ethics. I co-authored a popular textbook that stated this position flatly: “Homosexual conduct is one form of sexual expression that falls outside the will of God.” I wasn’t mean about it. But I said it.

In recent years, my moral position has shifted. It has dawned on me with shocking force that homosexuality is not primarily an issue of Christian sexual ethics. It’s primarily an issue of human suffering. With that realization, I have now made the radical decision to stand in solidarity with the LGBT community.

Working through this issue has taken me back to the very roots of my faith.

In 1978, when I was a hopelessly confused 16-year-old ex-Catholic kid, I stumbled into a Southern Baptist church near my Virginia home. I was looking for something — anything — to make sense of life. Four days later, I was a newly minted born-again convert. I was attracted by the vibrant faith, moral certainty and loving spirit of the people I met in that church. My life was transformed. By 1993, I had been ordained in a Southern Baptist church and received a doctorate in Christian ethics from Union Theological Seminary in New York.

Union Theological Seminary is a school in the liberal Protestant tradition, though at the time I  remained firmly anchored as a Southern Baptist. But I was initiated into an ethical tradition that revered those very special human beings who stood against majority opinion in their era to follow God and conscience, as they understood was required of them — come what may. Teachers like Glen Stassen of Southern Baptist TheologicalSeminary (later Fuller Seminary) and Larry Rasmussen of Union taught me about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, the silence of most “good” Christians amid the slaughter of the innocents, and the few, great resisters such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a hero to these mentors and to me.

Studying race and black theology in a context blessed by the presence of  James Cone and Cornel West, and hearing about the largely silent white church during the harrowing days of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, I came to believe that silence in the face of majority contempt for a minority is just as immoral as direct perpetration of evil. Too often, people are silent when minorities are being victimized, because majority opinion is powerful. It is hard to cut against the grain of your entire culture, and courage is costly.

Since the 1960s, when the gay rights movement began in America, Christians and their leaders have struggled to figure out how to respond to the growing tolerance of same-sex relationships. Most in Christianity have responded by offering endless debates over how to interpret that handful of biblical passages. Books erupted. Congregations fought. Denominations split.

For me, the answer to this debate has become simple: There is a sexual-minority population of about 5 percent of the human family that has received contempt and discrimination for centuries. In Christendom, the sexual ethics based in those biblical passages metastasized into a hardened attitude against sexual- and gender-identity minorities, bristling with bullying and violence. This contempt is in the name of God, the most powerful kind there is in the world. I now believe that the traditional interpretation of the most cited passages is questionable and that all that parsing of Greek verbs has distracted attention from the primary moral obligation taught by Jesus — to love our neighbors as ourselves, especially our most vulnerable neighbors. I also now believe that while any progress toward more humane treatment of LGBT people is good progress, we need to reconsider the entire body of biblical interpretation and tradition related to this issue.

Put simply, it finally became clear to me that I must side with those who were being treated with contempt, just as I hope I would have sided with Jews in the Nazi era and with African Americans during the civil rights years. With that realization, I began working on my new book, “Changing Our Mind.”

It is hard to describe exactly why my moral vision shifted in this way. But undoubtedly, it had much to do with my move to Atlanta in 2007 and my growing contact with LGBT people, especially fellow Christians. I hardly knew anyone who was gay before that move, but afterward, they seemed to be everywhere, and a few became very dear friends. It became clear to me — in a deeply spiritual place that I will allow no one to challenge — that God was sending LGBT people to me. The fact that one of these LGBT Christians is my dear youngest sister, Katey, has made this issue even more deeply personal for me than it would have been. The fact that one place where she developed a deep struggle with her sexuality was in evangelical churches has contributed to my new moral commitment to make evangelical families and churches safe places for LGBT people.

Evangelical Christians, such as Denny Burk and Robert Gagnon, are criticizing me because I’m now “pro-LGBT.” They want to shift the discussion immediately to the debate on same-sex relationships and the proper interpretation of those six or seven most cited Bible passages. I want to move right back to what really matters the most to me — loving this particular 5 percent of the population in exactly the same way that Christians are called to love everyone. That means attending to what most harms them and doing something about it. And that means offering full acceptance of LGBT people, ending religion-based harm and contempt, helping families accept the sexual orientation of their own children, and helping churches be a safe and welcoming place for every one of God’s children. For this reason, I have accepted invitations to contribute to the work of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Family Acceptance Project.

I am pro-LGBT in just the same way I hope I would have been pro-Jew in 1943 and pro-African American in 1963. I stand in solidarity with those treated with contempt and discrimination. And I do so because I promised in 1978 to follow Jesus wherever he leads. Even here.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

The Gay Christian Debate: A “Simplified” Perspective

It is easy for Christians to find pamphlets, articles, and books articulating the “traditional” interpretation of Scriptures regarding homosexuality.  One such pamphlet was distributed to all of Gordon College just a couple of weeks ago. While the arguments for a more “progressive” interpretation are becoming more accessible, their compilation into a brief, easily understood format is harder to find.  This is such an attempt, which I hope will be helpful. It seems to me that the arguments in favor of God-sanctioned homosexual, committed, monogamous relationships boil down to three main categories: 

The Bible doesn’t really say what we think it says.

The Bible says what we think it says, but it only says that to a particular time and culture.

The Bible says what we think it says, it transcends time and culture, but Jesus is greater than the Law.  This argument would also include something like N.T. Wright’s fifth-act model.

   1.     The Bible doesn’t really say what we think it says.

  In the Old Testament, we have several verses, which are often quoted to condemn homosexuality.  Thankfully, the use of Sodom and Gomorrah has been debunked by many scholars, including conservatives, who have proven that the lesson around these cities was about a lack of hospitality, not homosexuality. Certainly, it doesn’t make sense that the entire town-full of men were gay. They also seemed relatively content to rape the female provided instead.  It appears that their desire to rape the male visitor, then, was a show of force, not of sexual desire.

  Also in the Old Testament, we have several “purity” verses condemning homosexual behavior, but these verses are intermixed with those commanding the Israelites to eat kosher, not to wear garments made of mixed fabrics, not to plant multiple types of grain in the same fields, etc. These verses as a whole, then, are best interpreted as a way to distinguish the Israelites from the rest of culture, not as eternal standards for Christians, who have clearly rejected most of them, dating from the time of Peter and Paul.

  In the New Testament, we have 3 “clobber” verses used against homosexual behavior. All are statements of Paul, not of Jesus Himself. Romans 1 is confusing at best.  It appears to refer to people overcome by lust, going beyond heterosexual behavior to homosexual behavior, practiced in conjunction with idol worship (Brownson).  This hardly seems to apply to homosexual relationships today.  The other two verses, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:10,  list two types of people to be condemned (malakoi and arsenokoitai).  These words appear to refer to male prostitutes and those who pay for sex with them, or to men (or, often in the case of malakoi, boys) who always assume either active or passive roles in homosexual intercourse, not to adults of equal status, engaged in committed, monogamous behavior. It has been argued by many scholars that there were no homosexual relationships between people of equal status at the time Paul was writing. Even if Paul was aware of such relationships, they would have been practiced as a part of pagan culture, something Paul would have wanted Christians to avoid.

  Also, importantly, Paul never condemned homosexual orientation, just behavior.  He appeared not to understand that such orientation could even exist. And, if he did, he believed it could be easily changed upon conversion:  “And that is what some of you were…..” (1 Cor 6:11), an idea that does not equate with modern, scientific understanding.

  2.     The Bible says what we think it says, but it only says that to a particular time and culture.  

  This is the argument used by many in the Church to affirm women in leadership roles, abolition, and interracial dating and marriage. We understand that the Bible was written in a particular time to a particular culture. In this culture, homosexual orientation appeared to be unheard of, and homosexual practice appeared to be a result of overactive lust and related to pagan worship. Also, importantly, homosexual practice appeared to involve a more powerful partner taking advantage of a less powerful one (a child, a slave, a soldier of lower rank). Clearly, we also would want to condemn this behavior.  If the writers of Scripture were not imagining a culture such as ours, in which equal, committed, monogamous, life-long homosexual relationships are a possibility, perhaps we should not extend the verses we have to apply to us today. These verses, then, weredescriptive of the culture and behavior of the early church, not prescriptive for us today.

  3.   The Bible says what we think it says, it transcends time and culture, but Jesus is greater than the Law.  This argument would also include something like N.T. Wright’s fifth-act model.

  This is a slightly more complicated argument, with greater pitfalls, perhaps, but it also may be the best interpretation of Jesus’ actual teachings.  In Matthew 12, we read the story of Jesus and His disciples walking in a field on the Sabbath.  His hungry disciples pick grain and eat it, in open defiance of Sabbath law and tradition. The Sabbath law is arguably one of the most important commandments.  It honors God’s great work and emphasizes His provision for man. It also emphasizes man’s inability to completely care for himself and provide for all of his own needs. Note, there is no indication in the text that the disciples were starving, a situation which may have mitigated the breach.  Instead, Jesus instructs the Pharisees that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. In other words, the Law is not some uncompassionate standard to which man must bow.  Instead it is meant to serve the needs of man. The Law was made to help man. Men were not made to be slaves to the Law. Jesus Himself said that all of the Law and the Prophets can be summed up in the commands to love God and neighbor (Luke 10:27). Perhaps, He really meant this. If a law does not serve the higher purpose of love, it can and should be reexamined and, perhaps, superceded. This is certainly what happened with the kosher laws and with circumcision; why not the law against homosexual behavior, if it no longer serves its loving purpose?

  What if we read Romans 14 with this understanding? Here, Paul was ostensibly discussing the Sabbath and foods, kosher and unkosher, but one might reasonably wonder if he had other things in mind as well.  Paul told us to “Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions” (1). “Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them.  Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand” (3-4). Though “some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike,” all should “be fully convinced in their own minds.  Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God “ (5-6).Paul goes on to state that  “nothing is unclean in itself,” but it is instead unclean for anyone who thinks it so (14). He also instructs us to not “let your good be spoken of as evil” (16). We are not to make our brothers and sisters stumble, which they will do if they engage in an activity that they believe is “unclean” (14), but we also must not allow our “good to be spoken of as evil” (16).  In the end, “each of us will be accountable to God” (12).

  In N.T. Wright’s fifth-act model, the author (full disclosure, who is opposed to homosexual practice) points to a different way of understanding the Authority of Scripture. In his understanding, we are living in the fifth act of a sort of play.  The first act is Creation, the second is the Fall, the third is Israel, the fourth is Jesus, and the fifth is the new age, begun with the formation of the early Church.  Living in the fifth act, we do not have an exact script, per se. The New Testament does not speak to every moral choice we have to make.  Technology, for example, is completely absent, as is birth control and the ability to keep our loved ones alive indefinitely on ventilators. We must go back to principles found in Scripture and “improvise,” always using themes of Scripture as a check on our decisions. This is, in essence, what we have done with the role of women in the Church. We see movement towards greater equality within Scripture itself, and extrapolate forward, assuming the end goal is that “In Christ, there is neither male nor female…” (Galatians 3:28).

  One more argument against homosexual behavior, the so-called “plumbing” argument, should be addressed. We’ve all heard this.  “The parts don’t fit.”  “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”  God made males and females biologically different on purpose and means for them to “fit” together. What is interesting is that the Bible itself does not often (or perhaps ever) make this argument itself.  When Adam is united with Eve, he calls her “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh,” emphasizing her similarity to him, not her biological differences (Brownson). As far as heterosexuality being the only acceptable option because of the possibility of procreation, the Bible does not emphasize procreation as the only reason for sex.  Sex itself, not procreation, is celebrated in the Song of Songs. Barren couples are mentioned often in Scriptures, and one can imagine they were still having sex. Older couples, well past the age of procreation, also appeared to be having sex, note Abraham and Sarah. Paul does not discuss procreation in his instructions for husbands and wives, In our world, if we truly applied this model, barren men or barren women should not get married or have sex.  Those past the age of childbearing should not have sex, either. Also, one might imagine that those unable to have sex for medical reasons have no business being married. We might argue that heterosexual marriage, including procreation, is normative in Scripture, but not normative for us all (Brownson).

  So, can we make assumptions about forward movement, such as that evoked by Galatians 3:28, on homosexuality based on the Text?  I believe we can. Homosexual behavior is condemned outright for the Israelites in the Old Testament.  In the New Testament, however, Jesus does not seem to feel it is necessary to even mention it.  He sets the example of making “friends” with sinners, being in relationship with “sexual deviants,” refusing to feel defiled by being in the proximity, or even touching, the unclean.  Paul’s condemnations of homosexuality are few and far between, (far fewer, in fact, than his references to the subordinate position of women,) and he only seems to condemn very specific homosexual acts (prostitution, those resulting from an excess of lust).  Philip is led by God to evangelize a eunuch, a man who, earlier, would have been considered no part of the kingdom of God

  The argument is by no means extensive.  Very little of it is my own original thought.  What I have attempted to do is to compile the common arguments in a way an average Christian layman can understand. This has been done often with a more “traditional” interpretation, but not as often as one would hope with a more “progressive” reading. I hope it leads to greater, and deeper, reflection. Ultimately, I hope we will come to see that neither side has ownership of the Biblical text.  Our Scriptures are complicated, and we all must come to them, through the help of the Holy Spirit, with an openness to understanding what they mean for us today, however difficult it may be not to read our own thoughts and desires into the text. While Church history is often an effective guide in interpretation, on some matters of culture (racism, slavery, women’s roles), the Church has frequently been more affected by culture than it has overcome it, so its guidance is not infallible.

  My own observations have led me to believe that homosexual orientation is no more a choice than race or ethnicity. Whether genetics or early childhood experience (or, likely, both) cause our orientation to develop, we have no conscious choice in the matter. I find myself unable, with love, to tell a gay brother or sister that their desires and feelings are wrong or abhorrent to God. I am heartbroken that these brothers and sisters have so often been excluded from the Church. Like Paul’s assessments of eating and Sabbath observance, I have come to a place of trusting the Holy Spirit to convict individuals as to their own, individual behavior.  If they believe homosexual behavior is a sin, then they should not engage in it. If they find it to be good, then they should not allow it to be spoken of as evil. It is, in no way, my place to inform someone else that they have been “gifted” with celibacy, any more so than it is my place to instruct them to engage in sexual behavior.  Because I believe that Scripture is not definitive in its condemnation of homosexual behavior, my choice is to love my brothers and sisters, of any orientation, and to trust that the Holy Spirit will direct their paths.

~Anonymous Faculty/Staff

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Gordon College and the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) recently released a joint statement announcing that the College would be undergoing a one year review of its campus policy forbidding “homosexual practice.”

The Wenham, Mass., College was criticized after president, D. Michael Lindsay, joined other academic and religious leaders, including some tied to Catholic colleges, in signing a letter requesting a religious exemption from President Obama’s executive order prohibiting sexual orientation-based discrimination, as reported by The Cardinal Newman Society. Gordon College quickly had its contract to use the town hall in Salem, Mass., canceled by Salem’s mayor in response to Lindsay’s request for religious exemption.

Gordon College will now spend the “next twelve to eighteen months” reviewing all aspects of its policy. At the end of the period the College will submit a review of the process and its outcomes to the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education for the NEASC’s meeting in September 2015. The review is to “ensure [Gordon College’s] ability to foster an atmosphere that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds, consistent with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation,” according to the joint statement.

The review process will include a “working group of 20 representative trustees, faculty, administrators, staff and students,” but any change to the current Gordon policy “is a responsibility of its Board of Trustees,” according to the joint statement. The NEASC reportedly reached out to Gordon College to assure them that “the organization won’t be rushing to withdraw the school’s accreditation” should the policy remain unchanged, but the NEASC does have control over the College’s access to federal funding.

According to the Boston Business Journal, when Gordon spokesman Rick Sweeney was asked if the working group would look at dropping the current policy, “Sweeney said he believes this will be among the options the working group considers. ‘There will be a very balanced perspective.’”

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Gordon faculty say complaints about school’s president preceded religious-exemption uproar - The Boston Globe

Gordon College’s president had faced faculty criticism over his leadership a year before he caused a firestorm this summer for supporting a religious exemption to workplace protections for gay and transgender workers.

In hindsight, professors say, many of their prior concerns foreshadowed the uproar that ensued in July after campus President D. Michael Lindsay and 13 other religious leaders signed a letter to President Obama calling for the exemption to the federal hiring rules.

Faculty at the Christian school in Wenham complained at a meeting in May 2013 that Lindsay and other top leaders made significant decisions unilaterally, according to a written summary of the meeting provided to the Globe.

Professors at the meeting expressed angst over topics including “the spiritual direction of the college,” saying recent moves by administrators were narrowing Gordon’s religious identity.

Click the link for the rest of the story.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Would you like a safe place to explore your questions about same-sex relationships and the Bible?  Megan DeFranza, former adjunct professor of theology at Gordon College, is hosting a book discussion starting Sunday, Sept. 28th, 7:30-9:30p.m., at her house in Beverly. DeFranza did her doctoral research on sex , gender, and sexuality. Her new book, "Sex Difference in Christian Theology: Male, Female, and Intersex in the Image of God" will be published by Eerdmans early next year. She has spent many years wrestling with the complexities of Biblical interpretation and sexuality. Given that the college recently identified a set of readings that the administration will be using for their own working group, let's meet our first week and decide together where we would like to begin (what books/articles, how often we want to meet, etc.). Be sure to RSVP so we can make sure we have enough space and message or email Dr. DeFranza if you need directions or a ride. We will organize a carpool from/to Gordon that evening.  The evening is open to Gordon students, alumni, staff, faculty, and anyone else who would like help thinking through the questions and willing to engage in civil, gracious, kind dialogue.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Prominent Gordon alumni speak out against anti-gay policy

WENHAM — More than two dozen Gordon College alumni whose success has been used to promote the college are now speaking out against its treatment of gays and lesbians.

In a letter to college President Michael Lindsay and the board of trustees, the group said Lindsay’s recent actions “have made it more difficult to be ambassadors of the college in our professional spheres of influence, among our neighbors, and in the world.”

The Sept. 18 letter was signed by 28 alumni, all of whom were recently featured in a “50 under 50” story in Gordon College’s alumni magazine or who appear on the college’s website as examples of accomplished graduates.

Peter Murphy Lewis, a 2002 graduate who was included in the “50 under 50” feature, was among those who came up with the idea of leveraging the influence of the “visible faces of Gordon” to pressure Lindsay and trustees.

“I said to a friend who was one of the 50 alumni, ‘I think we should use our names and the fact that we’re the poster kids of the university,’” Lewis said.

The letter is the latest salvo in the controversy that has embroiled the college since Lindsay signed a July 1 letter to President Obama seeking a religious exemption to federal hiring rules barring discrimination against gays and lesbians.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Gordon Statement Is Inadequate And Irresponsible

Let us hear the voices of those directly affected by policies and statements.

Note: this piece was written by an alum and previous staff members of the college, not a current faculty or staff. 

A portion of the piece: 

Dr. Phillips’ statement is consistent with my experience at the Harvest: theologically sophisticated, well-structured and researched, but deeply lacking. The statement fails in the same way that Christian colleges have failed their gay and lesbian students for years. It fails to think beyond Biblical interpretation and into the lived experience of gay and lesbian people. It ignores the entire disciplines of psychology and sociology, which should inform Christians’ understanding of life and faith.

Not only is the statement inadequate, it is irresponsible, to say the least. After pages of discussions of original Greek, Hellenistic literature, and Levitical law, readers are neutrally directed to organizations that offer the potential for a change of sexual orientation. Many gay and lesbian Christians have pursued change because they were told it was possible. At the core of ex-gay therapy is a tantalizing promise: if you acknowledge that your father was distant and your mother was too close, you might desire a bond with a woman rather than a man. If you can work through the childhood sexual abuse, you may find men attractive instead of women. If you fully commit to sexual purity, it’s likely that you can awaken your “latent heterosexual desire.” A recent study by the Williams Institute found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who sought our religious or spiritual treatment were more likely to attempt suicide. For the handful whose stories are broadcasted widely as evidence of change, there are thousands more who are left feeling spiritually inadequate, wrought with mental anguish and struggling with God’s silent response to their prayers for change.

Dr. Phillips’ statement doesn’t reflect Gordon claims to engage the whole person in the life of the mind and the life of faith. Students’ guiding document about homosexuality and Biblical texts offers a singular perspective and one apart from any input from departments dedicated to understanding the full experience of the human person. Those who want to understand more are directed to ex-gay ministries which claim sexual orientation is changeable. Dr. Phillips offers little to no comment about the veracity of their claims or acknowledgement of the deep psychological cost thousands of gay and lesbian people have experienced because of these organizations. Exodus International, a 37 year old umbrella organization for ex-gay ministries, closed down last year and issued an apology to LGBTQ people for the hurt they had caused by promising that change was possible. In July, nine former leaders of ex-gay organizations came also out against ex-gay (or reparative) therapy and apologized for the pain and hardship they caused.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Petition for the Common Good

We, the undersigned, respectfully request for the common good of our entire community that the words “homosexual practice” be removed from the Gordon College Life and Conduct Statement.

If you are a member of, or affiliated to, the Gordon College community we ask that you consider signing the petition started by our valiant One Gordon alumni to change Gordon's life and conduct statement for the common good of our community. 

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

An amazing piece from a current Tenured Faculty. 

The letter sent, at President Lindsay’s direction, from Gordon’s law firm to the Lynn school committee’s attorney crossed a line for me as a Gordon alum and faculty member and a Lynn resident. I believe any reasonable person who reads the letter would and should interpret it as a threat of potential legal action. Gordon's public characterization of the letter as not a threat crosses another line.

The existence and action of the letter are unacceptable and contrary to the character and ethos of Gordon College. If Gordon had and has no intent to sue the city of Lynn, they wouldn't need a three-and-a-half page letter quoting case law and alleging violation of the first amendment indicating that intent. If the intent was to give Lynn warning that some outside entity might sue Lynn on Gordon’s behalf - and if Gordon genuinely has no desire or willingness to be a part of this - they would spell that out in the letter. That is, such a letter - and, as importantly, follow-up public statements clarifying the letter - should state clearly and unequivocally that it would violate the ethos and mission of Gordon College to be in any way party to legal action against our community partners related to any first amendment issues.

  The very idea of asserting rights to coerce a community to accept Gordon’s “service” is absurd and insulting. 

  Instead of a clear commitment not to sue, the document uses phrases such as “in the hopes of avoiding such a scenario [litigation]” as reason for sending the letter. In a September 9 Boston Business Journal piece, the Gordon lawyer who wrote the letter to Lynn is quoted as saying "he originally hoped that the Lynn School Committee would back off voluntarily." In other words, Gordon was not committed to avoiding litigation, and Lynn (the letter, sent hours before the school committee's discussion and vote, implies) should make the right choice to avoid it. I was in attendance at the August 28 Lynn meeting, and it was obvious during statements made by at least three school committee members in their discussion prior to a majority vote to sever ties with Gordon, that they understood the letter as a threat and reacted to this move as an act of hubris.

There are many ways the present situation could have been different, coming out of and supporting further respectful interaction. This open letter to Lynn (and related testimony at the school committee meeting), for instance, offers some productive compromises for the consideration of the several passionate, articulate parents, teachers, and community leaders who also spoke before the vote. These Lynners expressed concern that Gordon students might be guilty by association with aggressive actions and communication emphasizing the incompatibility of living as a gay* person with Gordon community standards. Continued conversation about whether this is or should be the case, and spaces to reflect the complexity and diversity of Gordon's thoughtful, faithful, creative, compassionate, curious - and obviously imperfect - students, staff, and faculty are sorely weakened in the context of threatening, disingenuous, and erratic rhetoric in Gordon's official public communication. There are also ways the present situation can become better. The most significant one, in my estimation right now, is to participate in opportunities to speak truthfully and to invite others to do so. I hope that my speaking truth may be in real love, although I admit it isn't always. One specific opportunity to lend one's voice to a call for truth, and this truth in service of reconciliation, humility, service, and fruitful relationships, is this petition requesting a direct statement from the college committing not to pursue nor aid any legal action against Lynn or other community partners.

  I continue to work and teach at Gordon in commitment to our mission and our students. But I can only do so with integrity if I have stated publicly that I am strongly opposed to recent actions, such as the commission of a letter implying threat of legal action and subsequent public statements mischaracterizing such a letter, of college officials. I continue at Gordon with serious concern about long-term consequences for our students and graduates stemming from unnecessary, destructive public communication by college officials over the past couple of months. But I also lean toward hope that ongoing conversations at every level will be open, listening, empathizing, clarifying, and reconciling.

*"gay" here, because the Conduct statement doesn't directly reference BTQIA+ "practice."

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

A school district in Massachusetts has cut ties with Gordon College, citing its president’s plea for an exemption to a rule preventing federal contractors from discriminating against gay and lesbian people, The Boston Globe reports. The Lynn School Committee, which governs the city’s public-school district, is the latest institution to protest D. Michael Lindsay’s signature on a letter asking the federal government to exempt religious colleges from the executive order. The city of Salem, Mass., in July nixed a contract that allowed Gordon College to use its town hall. The committee voted, 4 to 3, last week to sever ties with Gordon College. In recent years the college has placed student volunteers in Lynn classrooms to student-teach or gain course credit. A Gordon spokesman said that the committee’s decision was “surprising” and that the college hoped the partnership would be renewed.

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Lynn school board severs ties with Gordon

LYNN — School Committee members voted 4-3 to cut ties between the public schools and Gordon College, citing the Wenham college “expressed intent to discriminate” in its hiring practices against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

The close vote Thursday came after an hour-long debate and reflected audience views in favor of severing ties with the college and speakers, including Gordon employees, who said the cut will hurt Lynn students.

Committee members Charlie Gallo, Patricia Capano, Maria Carrasco and John Ford voted to end the public schools’ relationships with Gordon.

“In Lynn, we have a policy of non-discrimination. It’s not about their beliefs; it’s about practices,” Gallo said.

Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy and committee members Rick Starbard and Donna Coppola voted to sustain the relationship with Kennedy, calling for a compromise between Gordon and the School Department.

Superintendent Catherine Latham recommended the committee cut ties with Gordon.

Committee members and even some supporters of continuing ties between the two institutions leveled criticism at Gordon President Michael Lindsay, who — according to a “personal message” bearing his name on the college website — was one of several Christian leaders who signed a letter to President Obama in July seeking a religious exemption from federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act language: specifically language referencing policies on hiring gays, lesbians, transgender people and bisexuals.

“We have never barred categories of individuals from our campus and have no intention to do so now,” Lindsay wrote in the online message referencing the Obama letter.

Val Buchanan, Gordon’s community engagement office director, acknowledged “hurt and anger caused by our president’s letter” and unsuccessfully urged the committee to allow Gordon students to sign “non discrimination” statements prior to working with Lynn students.

She said Gordon students have a long history of mentoring local public school students, and Coppola praised Gordon for working with the school Department when “many colleges haven’t worked to build ties with us.”

But Ford said he would only change his vote to cut ties with the school if Lindsay “is removed by saner people.”

“It’s very important to send a message to a gentleman who said discrimination is OK,” Ford said.

Paul Miller, who described himself as a gay man and former Gordon admissions officer, suggested the committee accept sensitivity training as a compromise short of cutting ties with the college.

But Stephen Harrington, a Lynn resident and executive director of the North Shore Alliance of Gay and Lesbian Youth, said Gordon practices “institutional prejudice.”

“It’s not always seen; but it’s always felt,” he said.

Buchanan said she does not “tolerate any discriminatory hateful practices” and urged committee members, prior to the vote, to “avoid punishing Gordon students” by continuing a relationship with the college.

But Lynn teacher Sheila O’Neil reminded the committee, “discrimination is discrimination.”

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Avoidance

Avoidance

These days, Gordon's Life & Conduct Statement is not a document of unity. These days. These days? How is today so different? The document is the same. Maybe it is actually a document meant to divide. Maybe its purpose is to distinguish between the "ins" and the "outs." Maybe we purposefully avoided this uncomfortable truth until now.

And this is understandable because the avoidance was institutionalized. 

Whether because it was slipped into HR policies when we needed a job, or into the fine-print of a housing agreement when we needed a room, compliance was required. For students, the RA finally stopped by and said "just sign it already." This began the dutiful, administrative uniformity which flowed upstream from RAs to RDs, RDs to the Director, the Director to the Dean, the Dean to the VP, the VP to the President, and then to the Board. "We have compliance!" you can hear the institutionshouting victoriously with raised arms at the beginning of each year. "Go Gordon!"

Yet avoidance also works in the other direction, from the top, down. 

Today, Gordon had an opinion piece in the Salem News. While the article painted an incomplete picture of the college, avoiding the deeply painful experiences of LGBT students, employees, and alumni who have been welcomed in part, but not in whole, it also avoided the current, approved wording of Gordon's Life & Conduct Statement. "Homosexual practice" was omitted, and replaced with the more generic "sexual activity outside of marriage." In this move, Gordon is surely sitting at the feet of Rome--so not a watershed moment for progressive change. However, in this subtle omission, the school is also taking seriously months of internal criticism calling for a change to the Life & Conduct Statement. Gordon's leadership is being affected by real pressure and is now sensitive to avoid contentious language, even when the terms to be avoided are its very own!

The truth is clear. 

For far too long we have avoided important changes, whether because of ignorance or because of the false unity of mandated compliance, and we are now admitting it publicly. So now is also the time to begin the hard work of healing. Make no mistake, the article is trying so very hard to defend Gordon's present, and the article's title calls for a healing which its self-serving body makes impossible. But the omission is a brief pause and a telling admission: we are avoiding our own terms because they are not helping. However small this hope may be, I do not want to avoid it, whether out of cynicism or bitterness. The avoidance must end.

~Anonymous Faculty/Staff

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

Hiring for Mission?

A certain phrase has been bandied about a lot lately.  Gordon College, it is argued, should be able to “hire for mission.”  Our president asserts this, and the Board of Trustees backs him up. 

  On one level, this seems obvious.  Gordon College, a private school, should be able to define itself and its mission, and its hiring practices should help promote that mission.  Even the behavior of its staff, faculty, and students should help promote, and not interfere, with that mission.

  But, what is the mission of Gordon College? “Gordon College strives to graduate men and women distinguished by intellectual maturity and Christian character, committed to lives of service and prepared for leadership worldwide.”  So, one might wonder, how exactly would hiring gay Christians, especially those in committed and monogamous relationships, interfere with that mission?  Can gay Christians not help men and women move towards intellectual maturity?  Do we not know gay Christians of exemplary character?  Can we not name gay Christians who are committed to lives of service and engaged in meaningful leadership?

  Our president uses this phrase as a way to end the argument.  We can continue to limit those whom we hire (or the behavior of those whom we hire) because of this need to “hire for mission.”  Perhaps he should be required to explain how our mission would be compromised by hiring those whom we continue to assert the right to reject?

~Anonymous Faculty/Staff

[dreamsfrommyteachers]

If You are Gay (Originally Published in Inside Higher Ed.)

This piece was brought to our attention by an anonymous faculty member. It was published anonymously in Insider Higher Ed. and references this blog. Thank you for you words colleague. 

If you are gay, like me, or an ally, and work, like me, at a member institution of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), you may have wondered this summer if the bad news about Christian colleges was ever going to end. In June, Eastern Mennonite University’s board announced that it was going to delay a decision whether to change the university’s current hiring practice, which does not permit employees to be in “covenanted same-sex relationships”; however, the board also stated that the current policy is suspended, creating a certain Kafkaesque situation. If a gay person in a “covenanted same-sex relationship” is hired during the suspension, or comes out, and the board decides to not change its current policy, what then?

CCCU member institutions (George Fox University, Simpson University, and Spring Arbor University) asked for and received religious exemptions from the Department of Education’s regulation that transgender students cannot be treated differently under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. A California state judge upheld California Baptist University’s decision to expel a transgender student.

But two letters submitted to President Obama requesting that a religious exemption be included in his then-pending executive order that federal contractors could not discriminate against LGBT employees provoked the most controversy. The first letter,dated June 25, 2014, and organized by the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, had 158 signatures, among them 25 presidents of CCCU member institutions. The second letterwas submitted on July 1, 2014, signed by 14, among them Michael Lindsay, president of Gordon College, a CCCU college.

On July 21, President Obama signed the executive order that added sexual orientation and gender identity to those categories protected by Executive Orders 11478 and 11246. The order does not include the requested religious exemption — only time will tell what litigation this omission will spark. I suspect the Alliance Defending Freedom is ready and waiting for the first CCCU college to knock on its door for legal help to keep LGBT persons at bay.

Others have written about the legal issues raised by this executive order for CCCU colleges. And the stream of books about biblical and theological perspectives is unending. I, for one, have probably read my last book providing a theological and biblical defense of same-sex relationships. Yes, there are some, e.g., Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, by James V. Brownson. As one supportive friend expressed it, “This conversation ended for me several years ago.”

Usually I can ignore the clamor about LGBT persons at Christian colleges — I am out to a small circle of friends where I teach and have other close friends who support me. I walk into my classroom and remember how much I enjoy talking about ideas. And teaching permits me to read books and discuss them. But reading the two letters submitted to President Obama requesting a religious exemption reminded me how many think that my presence threatens the moral health of their institutions even though I am a co-religionist. If an out, gay professor at a Christian college were teaching the Krebs Cycle in Biology 101 or explaining the origins of World War I in History 370, does the content then suddenly become inaccurate? Or will s/he "have a gay agenda"?

Do some CCCU institutions think having out, gay, married faculty/staff would be interpreted as an official endorsement of same-sex marriage? I have colleagues who are divorced — does their presence mean the institution "endorses" divorce? No, it does not. I have married colleagues who have chosen not to have children. Does this mean the university "endorses" that choice? No, it does not. The university simply recognizes the freedom to decide for ourselves what is best and makes for fulfilled lives.

Some signers of these letters have not acquitted themselves well once negative reaction set in. President Lindsay of Gordon has now said he “never would have signed the letter if he had known it would become public.” So much for the courage of his convictions.

Friends at another CCCU institution told me that there was general confusion when the president, having signed the letter, insisted that his institution did not, in fact, discriminate against LGBT persons. This despite language in the faculty and student handbooks which has prevented out, gay, partnered faculty from being hired for decades.

One of the more disappointing statements was made by William Robinson, interim president of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, who stated, “The issue is not homosexuality. It’s religious freedom.” How can the issue not be homosexuality when faculty handbooks and institutional statements at CCCU institutions contain language that bars hiring gay people?

From Biola University’s Standard of Conduct for faculty: “members of the Biola community are not to engage in activities that Scripture forbids.  Such activities include, but are not limited to, dishonesty, thievery, fornication, adultery, homosexual practice...."

From Bethel University’s “Covenant for Life Together”: “The Bible also identifies character qualities and actions that should not be present in the lives of believers. For example: destructive anger, malice, rage, sexual immorality, impurity, adultery, evil desires, greed, idolatry, slander, profanity, lying, homosexual behavior, drunkenness, thievery, and dishonesty.” 

“The issue is not homosexuality. It’s religious freedom.” Please.

But for the issue of homosexuality, letters requesting a religious exemption from the president’s executive order would never have been written.  Robinson’s statement is sadly reminiscent of language used by Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University, in a 2000 interview with Larry King on CNN. Jones responded this way to a question about the university’s ban on interracial dating: “Well, being a Bible believing institution, Larry, we try to base things on Bible principle [sic]. The problem we have today is that our principle is so greatly misunderstood. People think we don't let them date because we are racist, in other words to be racist you have to treat people differently. We don't. We don't let them date, because we were trying, as an example, to enforce something, a principle that is much greater than this. We stand against the one-world government.... The Bible is very clear about this.... There is a religious freedom issue, that's all we ever fought for.”

CCCU presidents who signed a letter to Obama to ensure religious freedom should encourage their respective institutions to make truth-in-advertising a hallmark of information for prospective students. I would suggest the following statement: If you are a student who is wrestling with your sexual and/or gender identity, then [name of institution] is probably not the place for you. It is not that we don’t recognize the reality of your struggle (in fact, we have a student organization where you can find support — depending on the institutional policy), but our religious liberty comes first. If you are gay and do enroll, you should know that the moment you graduate your status changes. Should you find someone to love and share life with and marry, we will not hire you.

A member of the Gordon College community wrote an eloquent essay on the controversy titled, “How long O Lord?” posted at an anonymous blog for members of the Gordon community “who want to share their thoughts yet don’t feel they can.”  The author identifies himself/herself as “Anonymous Staff/Professor” and writes:

“How long O Lord? Scripture often uses this phrase as a sign of lament.... For my community at Gordon I ask, How long O Lord?.... How long until we have real conversation about the image of God and the possibility that maybe we’ve been interpreting scripture wrong on this issue for centuries? .... How long O Lord till we repent for dividing your community? I pray that it will not be too late when we do. This I lament.”

Amen and amen.

Author Bio: The author is a faculty member at a Christian college where publishing this piece with the author's name would result in dismissal.