What’s Wrong with the World

One sad moral of the story, I believe, is that it's well-nigh impossible for a Christian institution to become large and more prestigious while retaining its identity.

That shouldn't be surprising. People flock to prestigious locations mainly for the opportunities, not necessarily the values that lead them to be prestigious. That's true of immigrants (most of whom are here for economic reasons only) and even true of college applications.

Paul, Jesus, and Moses wrote in a day before birth control, before a population surplus, and before condoms. Would they have thought the same things about sex and marriage in today's society that they did in their own? No one knows for sure, that's for certain, and without some clear moral guideline, it's irresponsible to uphold 1st century moral judgements as binding in the 21st. You can have your opinion, sure, but having a "condemnation" is unjustified and irresponsible. Baylor has done well to remove this tidbit of radical Christian overconfidence from it's charter.

Ah, the argument from the calendar. Someone should label this particular blatant fallacy--sheer chronological snobbery--with a Latin name.

No one knows for sure, that's for certain,

Yes, actually, we do.

By the way, I'm pretty sure Roman culture had homosexuality. Pretty sure that's why Paul (no dewy-eyed innocent) went out of his way to condemn it.

Is it too much to ask one of these institutions to just say outright that yes indeed engaging in homosexual is immoral and one who does cannot be a member in good standing in their community? Then saying they do not care what the consequences are and that it is more important to hold fast to what is true and good even if in the end it means they get shut down. This attempt at toeing the line and making everyone happy is no doubt going to backfire (and no doubt is just a step towards of complete and total capitulation).

Someone from Baylor administration should change the university's religious affiliation from "Baptist" to "historically Baptist."

I doubt it's coincidental that Baylor's president is a power lawyer. His outlook is very different from, say, Albert Mohler's.

On his publicly visible Facebook wall, Robert Gagnon (who is _very_ staunch on this issue, who deserves our hearty support as he takes a lot of flak as a scholar, and whom I am _not_ criticizing by posting this) expresses concern about this change but also posts the following:

I have received word from someone 'in the know' that the change is not significant but was done out of legal considerations without changing policy.

To which claim by the "person in the know" I respond thus:

They are dancing. Their own spokeswoman refused to answer the news media when they asked if this now means the university accepts homosexual "marriage." Just how long do they think lawsuits can be held off? All that it takes is a test case, and at that point they have made the connection between their policies and traditional Christian morality all the more tenuous. So a faculty member "marries" his homosexual partner, they try to fire the faculty member, and do they think he's _not_ going to sue because they have changed this language? What a ridiculous notion! If anything, such a faculty member would have _more_ of a pretext to sue since they have changed this language. He could say that the school no longer explicitly prohibits homosexual acts and that he is married! And the same mutatis mutandis for expelling students for being openly and actively homosexual, as long as they are "married," excluding "married" homosexuals from married student housing and on and on. This provides _zero_ legal protection if the school actually intends to _enforce_ a policy against homosexual acts, and if anything renders them _more_ vulnerable to lawsuit in such cases. A claim that this protects the school legally doesn't even make good nonsense. The person "in the know" is engaging in wishful thinking. The only possible way that Baylor can protect itself from what it's obviously afraid of legally is by throwing out any attempt to uphold Christian sexual ethics in practice and allowing actively homosexual faculty and students continue at the school in good standing.

If you state up front that your religiously based policy is that homosexual acts are contrary to your religious tenets, this tells people in advance that they shouldn't think or pretend that they can say they are married homosexuals and expect to be treated as such by the institution. Nobody can claim that he accepted employment or became a student under a misconception. By removing the reference to homosexual conduct and replacing it only with a statement about marriage, and by refusing to answer and interpret how this relates to homosexual "marriage," they positively _invite_ a test case to force them to clarify their position.

If this has been for legal protection it must be in the hope that by changing the wording that this will dissuade anyone from catching on and suing them. I agree this invites a test case, but probably a test case for a judge to declare what Baylor's policy on endorsing same sex conduct and "marriage" will be.

How can anyone _not_ catch on if they _actually_ and in practice prohibit homosexual conduct? It will be a matter of public knowledge if some Baylor professor claims to be married to his homosexual partner. It will also be a matter of public knowledge if they fire him subsequently. It's not as though what happens from now on at Baylor is somehow happening in deep secret! If, on the other hand, such a person is _not_ fired, or if homosexually "married" students are admitted, etc., then that will tell us all what this meant, won't it? I mean, this is presumably going to be a question for on-going policy decisions at the college. It can't be evaded by a wording tweak, because there are going to be real people to whom this question will apply. Do they really think that it will just magically happen by chance that no one in such a big university will be openly engaging in homosexual acts? (If they aren't already.)

No, the only way that the left will "not catch on" is if the school's Christian identity is so deeply buried that homosexual acts are, in fact, allowed at the school among faculty and students. I admit, that would be a _great_ disguise. No one will ever guess then that they really are a Christian school with a secret, hidden policy prohibiting homosexual acts! Clever, that.

Suppose a Christian college does explicitly say that "sex outside of marriage violates its code of conduct", and that "for the purposes of the code of conduct, it only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman." And then they fire a male teacher who gets "married" to a male.

Will that code of conduct provide cover from being judged to violate he civil rights of the teacher?

I think what I am hearing is that the answer is: no, unless the college is actively tied to a church entity and answers to that church in its policies and its administration of those policies. And, probably, that the college is in some sense an extension of the teaching role of that church to spread its own teaching. That only the church entity's rights under the first amendment will (probably) trump the civil right, in theory.

I am having trouble seeing why - on the liberal understanding of the first amendment - this protection is only afforded the church. If the school claims "we are a religious entity, just not a church", would that not put them under the first amendment protection just as much as a church? The first amendment language is not layered protection of "churches" but of "religion". Why can't a college claim the mantle as much as a church?

If the liberals want to say that the amendment language is code for "a religion" meaning "a church," wouldn't they have to give up ALL the so-called jurisprudence that hammered government for making laws "respecting religion" that didn't touch CHURCHES but on religious tenets and teachings?

If the school claims "we are a religious entity, just not a church", would that not put them under the first amendment protection just as much as a church? The first amendment language is not layered protection of "churches" but of "religion". Why can't a college claim the mantle as much as a church?

Traditionally in U.S. law and precedent, they can. In fact, I believe in the BJU case it was admitted by the majority that the free exercise applied to BJU. However, they concluded that the state had an overriding interest in not encouraging racism or some such. In other words, I believe they accepted the strict scrutiny criterion that applies to burdening religious freedom but said that it was met.

Will that code of conduct provide cover from being judged to violate he civil rights of the teacher?

Up until now, it definitely would have done so for a religious school, yes. And I would still urge a school to press that role. Could the courts now change that? Possibly. The jury, as it were, is still out on that.

But it's a heck of a lot better cover than *taking out* any statement *in the code of conduct* that marriage is limited to a man and a woman, stating that the former prohibition on homosexual acts is not consistent with your "caring community," and leaving the only connection to male-female marriage in some _different_ document which is in some way connected to your code of conduct.

Doing that pretty much invites the interpretation that your college is now going to turn a blind eye to openly, actively homosexual faculty and students, especially if they are "married." And if you then later actually try to crack down, the mixed signals sent by the language change will _certainly_ be used as an argument in court on the other side.

And another one's gone, and another one's gone...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/july-web-only/hope-college-and-belmont-to-offer-benefits-to-same-sex-spou.html?share=GcNwk5OSRqtvtpu5zyTuVOQeyTi3N/Uv

Paul, Jesus, and Moses wrote in a day before birth control, before a population surplus, and before condoms.

Ain't it just precious that Garrett's information doesn't even rise to the level of Wikipedia on the subject.

"Ah, the argument from the calendar. Someone should label this particular blatant fallacy--sheer chronological snobbery--with a Latin name."

How about the straight forward "argumentum a calendarium"?

I love the post and the comments!

Is it possible the "legal mandates" include accreditation agency pressure? Word is accreditation agencies are themselves feeling some pressure from the Obama administration to pressure others.

If so, the colleges should resist. If they don't resist now, they will capitulate altogether. By removing the language prohibiting homosexual conduct, Baylor "protects" itself legally only to the extent that it actually follows through on that trajectory and does not, in fact, prohibit homosexual conduct! Those who want to sue are hardly going to refrain from suing because of the absence of _language_ prohibiting homosexual conduct if the school's actual _actions_ are, in fact, "discriminatory." The notion that removing that language is protective by itself while the school can remain true to Christian moral norms in _practice_ doesn't even make good nonsense, whether actual pressure is coming from an accreditation agency or whether this is just preemptive capitulation because of something some lawyer said.

Another angle they and other Christian schools probably haven't considered is that to the extent to which they tolerate homosexual conduct they must tolerate similar heterosexual conduct. They can't get away with turning a blind eye toward "unmarried" homosexuals having sexual relationships and yet prohibit heterosexual students from having sexual relationships outside of marriage. If anything, I predict that this is where they may get sued the hardest since secular society won't have any mercy on them holding an exclusive heterosexual couple to a higher standard than a gay couple in a probably open relationship.

As I recall, Baylor has football players who have fathered children out of wedlock, so...

It's less of an issue for them and more for universities like Liberty and BYU which place very stringent restrictions on heterosexual conduct.

Allegedly, they still do. I mean, these guys didn't even claim to be married. But football is pretty important to some schools.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those to say, "If we aren't totally consistent, we have no 'moral authority' to speak out against homosexuality." It may well be, however, that an increasingly lax attitude toward heterosexual promiscuity has fueled an increasingly lax campus culture and attitude towards sexual sin generally, official policy (against heterosexual misconduct) notwithstanding.

But football is pretty important to some schools.

Understatement of the century.

It may well be, however, that an increasingly lax attitude toward heterosexual promiscuity has fueled an increasingly lax campus culture and attitude towards sexual sin generally...

Understatement of the last fifty years.

Nicely said, Step2. I like your math, too.

Is your reference to a Queen song deliberate? They aren't good role models.

Certainly not using them as role models. It was just the phrase that popped into my head for the incredibly rapid fall of Christian (or "Christian") colleges to this agenda. Except it's more like institutional suicide (at least as far as any identifiable Christian identity) than mass murder (as in the song). Given my generation, I heard the song quite often on the radio in youth. It's what the kids nowadays call an "earworm," though an unpleasant one.

You do understand, I trust, that bloggers struggle to find catchy titles.

Much of the time my titles are about as interesting as, "A post in which I discuss the sad fact that Baylor University is betraying its values by preemptively removing homosexual conduct from its list of explicitly prohibited activities."

This time, I decided to use something more punchy, since it happened to occur to me. So we can lighten up about that, hopefully.

In addition to the fact that the phrase "bites the dust" pre-dated Queen, which is why THEY used it. So let's just chill, here.

There are other changes:

"Changes to Baylor’s sexual misconduct policy

Former sexual misconduct policy

In all disciplinary procedures, Baylor University will seek to be redemptive in the lives of the individuals involved and to witness to the high moral standards of the Christian faith. Baylor will be guided by the understanding that human sexuality is a gift from the creator God and that the purposes of this gift included (1) the procreation of human life and (2) the uniting and strengthening of the marital bond in self-giving love. These purposes are to be achieved through heterosexual relationships within marriage. Misuses of God’s gift will be understood to include, but not be limited to, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts.

Revised sexual conduct policy

Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality."

Sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are likely dealt with in other places. When was the last time anyone was disciplined for incest about which I believe the state of Texas has views? That leaves "adultery, fornication and homosexual acts." Put yourself in the place of the administration. According to the Wiki Baylor has about 16,000 students with only 36% living on campus. Eighteen year olds are adults in Texas. The old regs were overwritten and unenforceable in any consistent manner in our present environment. Starr was involved in the Prop. 8 battles in California so he has first hand experience as to the losing nature and lack of serious, non-theological arguments re: SSM. Also, given his Clinton adventures I'm sure he wants his Baylor legacy to not be about dealing harshly with adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals. When times change and your star basketball player comes out as a lesbian, one can choose to be a player academically and athletically or one can choose to be an obscure religious college (and figure out what to do with the left over infrastructure and debt}. I guess one can "expect" all sorts of things; I, for one, expect a pony any day now.

"Nothing provides more concrete evidence of Baylor University's drive to become one of the nation's top schools than its massive building campaign during the past decade. Baylor added more than 1.8 million square feet in new facilities, creating a new look for its campus. Hulking new academic buildings, majestic sports venues and sleek student housing now dominate the scenery. While there's no debate the results of the building spree are impressive, some Baylor constituents expressed concern about the price tag. Before the launch of Baylor 2012, the school's 10-year strategic plan, the university typically didn't build facilities unless it had money in the bank to pay for them. But to finance the capital component of the vision, Baylor issued $247 million in bonds. Some said the university was foolishly mortgaging its future, and they predicted skyrocketing tuition."

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=115092

What shall it profit a school if it gain a massive building campaign, become a "player academically," and lose its own soul?

Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels.

What is it to be "one of the nation's top schools" in 2015 than to thumb your nose at the Most High God and sell your soul to the devil himself?

'Put yourself in the administration's shoes.'

I'm sure none of us would want to do that at this point.

Starr was involved in the Prop. 8 battles in California so he has first hand experience as to the losing nature and lack of serious, non-theological arguments re: SSM.

Proposition 8 lost because a single federal judge overruled a majority of California voters. The only thing it did was remind us that the will of the people only matters insofar as the judiciary allows it to hold legal weight.

A judge, mind you, who had an animus against traditional mores.

Queen did not invent the phrase, although they used it.

There is a problem with Baylor's reference to the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, and none of the major news outlets have picked up on it.

The quotation “Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime" does not come from the original 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, it comes from the 1998 addition of a "Family" section by the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention). Soon after the SBC completely revised the entire document to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

This is important. The Baylor policy does reference the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, because of it's association with the BGCT (the Baptist General Convention of Texas). However, the BGCT specifically rejected updates to this message made by the more conservative SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) in later years, including the "Family" section that was added in 1998, and which includes the marriage definition quoted in this article. Here is an article that discusses this specific rejection of the 1998 amendment (and reaffirmation of the 1963 statement) by the BGCT:

http://www.txbc.org/1999Journals/December%201999/Dec99bgctaffirms.htm

What is important to note is that the original Baptist Faith and Message of 1963 - the version accepted by Baylor and the BGCT - does NOT include a definition of marriage. The marriage definition comes from a 1998 addition which was rejected by the BGCT.

BQ, that's fascinating. Both the secular news outlet I linked in the main post and Christianity Today clearly take the 1998 update to be included in what Baylor means to be linking to. CT, in fact, explicitly cites the fact that it was updated in 1998 and that this is from the 1998 update, but seems to be implying that the Baylor spokeswoman meant to include the 1998 section.

But, both in terms of what their legal intention is, what her (the spokeswoman's) intention was, and in predicting future practice, why should anyone assume that? If they said 1963 they presumably meant 1963.