by William Trollinger
As Adam Laats convincingly demonstrates in his wonderful Fundamentalist U, evangelical and fundamentalist colleges are all about presenting themselves – to donors and parents – as “safe” educational havens for their students. What constitutes “safe” is different from institution to institution; more than this, what is understood as keeping students safe changes over time (e.g., at most of these schools today dancing is not seen as the great threat to student morality that it was a few decades ago). That said, and as I wrote years ago in an essay on evangelical/fundamentalist higher education, the obsession at all of these institutions with being intellectually and culturally “safe” for their students is evidence that
evangelical and fundamentalist schools are not as different as individuals in both sorts of schools might assert. For one thing, the faith statements at both sorts of schools are often quite similar; while the statements at fundamentalist schools are typically longer and much more detailed, the fact is that, even at many evangelical schools faculty are required to sign on to inerrancy and premillennialism statements. Moreover, both sorts of schools engage in a good amount of “boundary maintenance.” While fundamentalist schools are much more concerned with strict, impermeable boundaries, and while a good number of faculty members at evangelical schools would not be allowed to teach at a fundamentalist school, the fact is that evangelical colleges can also be quite restrictive, and, on occasion, engage in a purge [of “unsafe” faculty members].
In fact, I am hard-pressed to identify an evangelical school that has not, at some point in its history, purged its ranks of “dangerous” professors.
For the most recent example of a purge, see Asbury University of Wilmore, Kentucky (which, coincidentally, happens to be one of the schools I discussed in the aforementioned essay). As reported by Linda Blackford at the Lexington Herald-Leader, “two popular and beloved faculty – Jon Roller [Worship Arts program] and Jill Campbell [music education] – were told their contracts would not be renewed,” the reason being that “they were supportive of Asbury’s LGBTQ students.”
What does this mean? Did Roller and Campbell fail to properly condemn LGBTQ students for their sin? Did they have the audacity to suggest to these students that God loves them as they are?
Whatever the specific offense, Blackford details that discrimination against LGBTQ students at Asbury has a long history (to the point that, according to one graduate, LGBTQ students at Asbury Seminary were forced to receive psychiatric treatment). And when the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage in 2015, Asbury secured a waiver on the basis of religion, thus ensuring that the school and its students can receive federal loans even though Asbury discriminates against LGBTQ students (and, apparently, faculty and staff who are too kind to those who are LGBTQ).
But the Asbury administration may not have adequately reckoned with the fact that many of their students would find the firings of Roller and Campbell to be appalling, and unChristian:
On Tuesday, several hundred students gathered with administrators, and according to an audio recording of the event [embedded in this article], numerous students expressed anger, frustration and confusion over the firings. Several cried as they recounted how much the two professors had helped them through their time at Asbury, and others asked why their compassion and caring would be punished in this way.
Here is the conundrum for evangelical colleges and universities. Donors and parents want these schools to be “safe” from the LGBTQ “menace.” But many of the evangelical students who attend these schools simply do not share and cannot understand their elders’ views on human sexuality.
How are these schools to negotiate this generation gap? Can these schools really ride it out until the youth become adults, at which time they can end their anti-LGBTQ discrimination?
And are evangelical and fundamentalist colleges simply doomed to playing it “safe,” always looking over the right shoulder to the most conservative segment of their constituency?
Shouldn’t Christian colleges affirm Christian behavior? Should the Bible not prevail and is not the Bible enough regardless of the generation? He must increase. Society is too affirming of anti-Christian values to gain friends and to not be called bigots or offensive. May God be true and every man a liar. Seek Him, not feelings or “human sexuality”. Just because you are tempted to do something, doesn’t mean doing it is right or beneficial.
Hi EHP. Just a question: Why is sexuality (about which the Bible does not have that much to say) the litmus test for whether or not one is a Bible-follower? Why isn’t caring for the poor, the immigrant, etc. the litmus test? See today’s rightingamerica post.
Hi Righting America,
According to scripture – which is what sets the standards by which Christian Universities ought uphold – any sexual activity outside of the marriage bed between one man and one woman is sinful.
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?”
These verses in scripture along with nearly 100 others are what helped build the foundation and teaching upon what sexuality looks like according to scripture.
Most Christian colleges (including Asbury) have statements of faith that students, faculty, and staff must sign in order to be a part of the university community officially as a student, staff, or faculty.
These guidelines are simply echos of the Christian teachings found in scripture and if a student, faculty, or staff has an issue with one of these guidelines, then they have the option to not go to that specific university.
The “elders” are simply upholding the contract that every individual – student, faculty, and staff – agree to before becoming a part of the university community in an official capacity. The reasons for why that is important is another conversation.
And when instances like this happen and people are fired, it’s not because of discrimination. It’s simply a matter of the fact that the guilty party did not hold up to their end of the agreement.
Also, to make it clear, I am not saying that anti-LGBTQ discrimination does not happen in places
like this (Christian Universities). Because I am sure it does. It can happen anywhere.
But these schools are not “required” to merge or “negotiate a generation gap” because their standards aren’t something that change.
Instead, people can choose to go to Christian universities if they’d like. They know what the guidelines are before they up. And the guidelines are not discriminatory upon a sexual orientation rather than how it is practice while a student, staff, or faculty in an official capacity.
These places likely have other conduct rules based on the authority of scripture that are required to be upheld as well.
And as someone who has experience attending a 4-year Christian University, there is love for people in the LGBTQ community at these institutions. Genuine Christian who understand what it looks like to walk in Christ’s footsteps in relationship with him do not greet anyone with hate but with love.
With that being said, scripture is clear on the confines of a sexual relationship – one man, one woman, in union through marriage – and that is a non-negotiable. It does not mean that Christians do love people in the LGBTQ community. Everyone is a brother and sister in Christ. It just means that we are not to affirm anyone’s decision -whether straight or a part of the LGBTQ community – to act on their sexual urges if it would lead them towards sin… which would be anything outside of the marriage bed between a man and a woman.
Hope this helps!
Peace and Blessings
Thanks for your comments. But again, you have failed to answer this basic question: Why is sexuality (about which the Bible does not have that much to say) the litmus test for whether or not one is a Bible-follower? Why isn’t caring for the poor, the immigrant, etc. — about which the Bible has much more to say — the litmus test?