Shorter College chills the Air

[Ed Pettibone]

I know President Underwood to be a man of conviction. He displayed his conviction while interim president at Baylor and is doing the same at Mercer University.

I'm sure he would reject the implication that he has been somehow pressured into taking this position. In light of Underwood's comments in the EthicsDaily column that this is "consistent with our policy of not discriminating" and is "the right thing to do," to suggest that he made this move due to pressure or, to quote Ed, "being in a bind," would imply that Underwood is being dishonest.

Underwood has always been regarded as an honest administrator. If he says this policy of domestic partner benefits is "the right thing to do," I think we can take him at his word that he sincerely believes that it is indeed "the right thing to do."

Kudos to Underwood for doing the right thing and enacting a policy consistent with Mercer's commitment to nondiscrimination and promotes fairness as well. If a school doesn't prohibit gays from employment and doesn't prohibit gay students from enrolling, they shouldn't punish those students and employees with their benefits offerings.

Ed: Aaron, I share your high esteem Bill Underwood. I have been very impressed with the man in on the four occasions that I have had the opportunity to hear him speak and in the three very brief conversations that we have had. I in no way have suggested that he has in this situation or for that matter in any situation, done any thing that is contrary to his personal belief. And when I spoke of Mercer being in a bind I was speaking of the impossibility of any institution with as broad of constituency base as Mercer University has, to satisfy everyone on every issue.

And I will agree with you that "If a school doesn't prohibit gays from employment... they shouldn't punish those ... employees with their benefits offerings." [/quote] Note I have omitted your references to students because I believe student s and employees being distinct groups need not be considered together in this issue. But then I see no good reason for a school to hire gays. On this you and I differ, so be it.

[Gene Scarborough]

Once you get specific on the morals of fundmentalism vs. the high sounding theology of fundamentalism----Life's not easy!!!

I was at "liberal" Emory as the height of rebellion over Viet Nam (1963-67). My high school classmates were walking the marshes and dying right and left. In the good old South a Student who has been an Administrator until recently, put together a big rally entitled "Affirmation Viet Nam." I saw it as the right thing to do at that stage with men dying for a just cause (we trusted Government to tell the truth then).

At the same time Emory was not making demands about Fraternity Row drinking as if "thou shalt not drink."

They were not interfering with professors telling them what to teach or not teach.

Gay was not even on the radar screen, but based on 1967, I am confident they would not discriminate on sexual orientation any more than they did over racial issues. On the other hand, Bob Jones and its like were rabid over the mixing of races as if they were in the heart of Alabama / Missississippi.

The religious zealots tend to have tunnel vision. A good educational institution is based on obtaining a clear view of all things. Good religion provides for individual differences of opinion. That is disappearing from the "wisdom of Baptists" allowing for Autonomy!

I view the Shorter and Truett-McConnel actions as nothing short of fundamentalist obsession and absolute compliance or else! The specific issues pale by comparison to schools already having a mix of adult-age students who must make decisions for themselves.

My father wisely observed as the preachers were ranting about Mercer not forbidding dancing in the 60's: "We send the students and it is OUR responsibility to send students with morals taught in their church sending them for a higher education!"

[Abel]

I know President Underwood to be a man of conviction. He displayed his conviction while interim president at Baylor and is doing the same at Mercer University.

I'm sure he would reject the implication that he has been somehow pressured into taking this position. In light of Underwood's comments in the EthicsDaily column that this is "consistent with our policy of not discriminating" and is "the right thing to do," to suggest that he made this move due to pressure or, to quote Ed, "being in a bind," would imply that Underwood is being dishonest.

Underwood has always been regarded as an honest administrator. If he says this policy of domestic partner benefits is "the right thing to do," I think we can take him at his word that he sincerely believes that it is indeed "the right thing to do."

Kudos to Underwood for doing the right thing and enacting a policy consistent with Mercer's commitment to nondiscrimination and promotes fairness as well. If a school doesn't prohibit gays from employment and doesn't prohibit gay students from enrolling, they shouldn't punish those students and employees with their benefits offerings.

Mercer cannot discriminate in their hiring of gays because of federal laws. However, they can follow state law and refuse to provide benefits to an employee's domestic partners. That Mr. Underwood has chosen to do so reveals his disregard for what God has said regarding the sin of homosexuality and fornication.

Just because Mr. Underwood deems it the right thing to do, does that trump what God has declared? Is it right to promote and reward that which God calls an abomination? When "Christian" people are supporting sinful lifestyles it is no wonder our country finds itself in the mess it is in.

[Gene Scarborough]

Abel---

Give me a break!!! Gays were present in Jesus' day as they have been throughout human history BUT he said NOTHING!

To blame all the woes of our country on the gay acceptance is to be the Conservative H.L. Menkin described as "my contemporary ancestors."

I would rather have them in a committed relationship than forced into the darkness of seducing people into their lifestyle---as have many Catholic Priests done. Our country is based on freedom and acceptance---even when we disagree on any matter.

[Abel]

You are trying to define "righteous" by deeds and actions further defined by your traditions as "right" or "wrong." The first thing a learning student in sociology class learns that much of morals is defined by culture. That which is "right" in one has no consequence in another.

I don't believe it is defining righteousness by deeds as much as it is following the Biblical principle of bearing fruit. We are known by the fruit we bear. A tree that produces sinful fruit is a sinful tree. James said he would show his faith by his works.

If a sociology student is learning his morals from his sociology class, he is learning the wrong morals. God has given mankind the Bible from which we are to learn and follow His morals.

[Abel]

Abel---

Give me a break!!! Gays were present in Jesus' day as they have been throughout human history BUT he said NOTHING!

To blame all the woes of our country on the gay acceptance is to be the Conservative H.L. Menkin described as "my contemporary ancestors."

I would rather have them in a committed relationship than forced into the darkness of seducing people into their lifestyle---as have many Catholic Priests done. Our country is based on freedom and acceptance---even when we disagree on any matter.

Jesus did not speak against bestiality or pedophilia either, but they are both sins...wouldn't you agree?

I'm not blaming all the country's woes on homosexuality. But it is a major contributing factor along with abortion, gambling, welfare, drugs and alcohol, just to name a few.

I would rather see homosexuals become born again by faith in Jesus and become new creatures in Christ. A committed homosexual relationship is just as sinful as a promiscuous homosexual relationship.

Our country was based on the principles of the Bible, not acceptance.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I know President Underwood to be a man of conviction. He displayed his conviction while interim president at Baylor and is doing the same at Mercer University.

I'm sure he would reject the implication that he has been somehow pressured into taking this position. In light of Underwood's comments in the EthicsDaily column that this is "consistent with our policy of not discriminating" and is "the right thing to do," to suggest that he made this move due to pressure or, to quote Ed, "being in a bind," would imply that Underwood is being dishonest.

Underwood has always been regarded as an honest administrator. If he says this policy of domestic partner benefits is "the right thing to do," I think we can take him at his word that he sincerely believes that it is indeed "the right thing to do."

Kudos to Underwood for doing the right thing and enacting a policy consistent with Mercer's commitment to nondiscrimination and promotes fairness as well. If a school doesn't prohibit gays from employment and doesn't prohibit gay students from enrolling, they shouldn't punish those students and employees with their benefits offerings.

Mercer cannot discriminate in their hiring of gays because of federal laws. However, they can follow state law and refuse to provide benefits to an employee's domestic partners. That Mr. Underwood has chosen to do so reveals his disregard for what God has said regarding the sin of homosexuality and fornication.

Just because Mr. Underwood deems it the right thing to do, does that trump what God has declared? Is it right to promote and reward that which God calls an abomination? When "Christian" people are supporting sinful lifestyles it is no wonder our country finds itself in the mess it is in.

Abel, educate me on how Shorter can refuse to hire gays but Mercer cannot?

Mercer and Shorter both can set their own hiring policies - as religious institutions. There's no federal law that bars them from doing so.

And to Ed's point, I mentioned students because Mercer's student insurance plan allows the student to cover their spouse/domestic partner. The university provides insurance coverage to faculty, staff and students.

[Abel]

Abel, educate me on how Shorter can refuse to hire gays but Mercer cannot?

Mercer and Shorter both can set their own hiring policies - as religious institutions. There's no federal law that bars them from doing so.

And to Ed's point, I mentioned students because Mercer's student insurance plan allows the student to cover their spouse/domestic partner. The university provides insurance coverage to faculty, staff and students.

I stand corrected. I thought Mercer was a public institution, but it is a private university. They do not have to hire people who are not in agreement with Biblical principles, which makes their position strange considering they are a "Christian" organization. Thanks for pointing out their other error.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Abel,

Do you believe that a Christian university should refuse to hire non-Christian employees and admit non-Christian students?

[Abel]

My personal opinion is that Christian schools should make clear their beliefs and policies to students, faculty and staff. If students or employees cannot follow the behavior as set forth by the institution, they should not be allowed to remain. Any behavior that brings shame to the name of Jesus should not be tolerated at a Christian school regardless of whether it is a student or employee.

I see nothing wrong with allowing non-Christian students into a Christian university as long as they abide within the guidelines set forth by the school. There is always the possibility they will be saved. I don't see anything wrong with hiring non-Christians to teach non-Christian classes. However, I do believe that as an employee, they represent the school and should most definitely follow school policies in regards of personal behavior.

[Gene Scarborough]

Abel---

Your "perfect world" of college reminds me of the perfect theocracies of many early colonies---all of which miserably failed.

Bet you would have voted for Prohibition as well----which generated more crime and profits for the mob than the old ways ever thought of. So much so that it was repealed as a stupid idea which produced more problems than is solved.

Do you ever read history, old buddy????

[Ed Pettibone]

Abel,

Do you believe that a Christian university should refuse to hire non-Christian employees and admit non-Christian students?

Ed: Aaron, let me take a shot at those two questions. A. No I do not believe that a Christian university should refuse to admit non-christian students who are otherwise qualified. On the other hand non Christian students should expect a christian environment consistent with the wishes of the sponsoring religious body. B. The hiring of faculty and other employees is a bit more complicated. Here I believe tenured eligible positions within the Religion department should be limited to Christians, and with possible exceptions of exemption for adjuncts teaching courses pertaining to other religions. In other schools and departments non Christians could be hired , if they are willing to sign an agreement to abide by the schools standard of morality and ethics , after every effort has been made to secure Christians to fill the positions.

And any University that I would recommend "provides insurance coverage to faculty, staff and students". Most other than some public universities draw a line on hiring homosexuals.

[Abel]

Abel---

Your "perfect world" of college reminds me of the perfect theocracies of many early colonies---all of which miserably failed.

Bet you would have voted for Prohibition as well----which generated more crime and profits for the mob than the old ways ever thought of. So much so that it was repealed as a stupid idea which produced more problems than is solved.

Do you ever read history, old buddy????

Gene, are you suggesting God's plan is a failure? We are call to be holy and live our lives separated from sin. Just because prohibition failed, does that mean the Christian community should just give up and live like the devil?

I do read history, but I prefer the Bible. Do you read your Bible?

[Sandy]

Do you believe that a Christian university should refuse to hire non-Christian employees and admit non-Christian students?

How can you have someone working for you who does not believe in, and support the mission and purpose of your school? Obviously, if you have non-Christian faculty in your classrooms, they will be teaching things that are contrary to the school's philosophy of Christian education and curriculum objectives. But even non-instructional personnel are being put in a position to influence students. You are diluting the message and downplaying the importance of the Christian faith when you compromise its message by doing so.

As far as the admission of students goes, it would depend on what the ultimate mission and purpose of the school was, whether it was in existence to train ministers to preach the gospel and serve the churches, such as a seminary or Bible college, or whether evangelism and discipleship were part of the mission. I don't see that it would be very productive for a non-Christian to be part of an educational and training program on that level that aimed to train its graduates to be preachers and missionaries. On the other hand, a school which sees itself as both discipleship and evangelistic can admit non-Christian students, and take advantage of the opportunity they've been given to lay out the claims of Christ.

[Chris]

Thank you so much, Bruce, for providing us with a "enemies" aka "ignore" option. I've just added another name to it.

[Haruo]

A committed homosexual relationship is just as sinful as a promiscuous homosexual relationship.

No, commitment to a life partner is less sinful than promiscuity.

Welcome, Abel.

[Gene Scarborough]

Abel---

I can assure you I read both my Bible and history. They are both part of mankind's story.

How about the depravity of Lot (Gen. 19):

(8) Look, I have 2 daughters who are still virgins. Let me bring them down to you, and you can do whatever you want with them.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was preceeded by Lot's willingness to give his virgin daughters to the crowd of men for their pleasure. While God was hating the sinfulness, Lot had no scrples about pimping his daughters!

Even a follower of God (or one who thinks it is his god who is the true god) is not so pure as to merit my respect.

Paul inflicted his sexual disfunction on Catholic priests in their vows. His " thorn in the flesh" has been postulated by many to have been some STD. No sexually pure believer is as perfect as we think.

Anyway, why the focus on the sexual side of life when drinking / jealousy / greed / gluttony (to name just a few) are equally on the Bible's pages as sin. Jesus said if you think of a sinful act it is the same as having committed it so none are perfect.

AND----who decides what the sins are? Eskimos share their women as Lot was willing to. It is a natural part of their acceptable activities which generates no guilt in them. Theft and lying are their biggies! Check out this delightful video about sin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ogyO3F7Va4&feature=related

[Abel]

A committed homosexual relationship is just as sinful as a promiscuous homosexual relationship.

No, commitment to a life partner is less sinful than promiscuity.

Welcome, Abel.

Thanks for the welcome Haruo. It is nice to be here. However, I must correct you on your statement. All homosexual relationships are equally sinful. No where in the Bible is there a distinction made between a committed or promiscious homosexual relationship. God says sodomy is an abomination...period.

Now, it may be your opinion that a committed homosexual relationship is less sinful, and you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you desire. However, you have no Biblical support for your opinion. There is not a single instance in the Bible of God blessing any homosexual relationship.

[Abel]

Abel---

I can assure you I read both my Bible and history. They are both part of mankind's story.

How about the depravity of Lot (Gen. 19):

(8) Look, I have 2 daughters who are still virgins. Let me bring them down to you, and you can do whatever you want with them.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was preceeded by Lot's willingness to give his virgin daughters to the crowd of men for their pleasure. While God was hating the sinfulness, Lot had no scrples about pimping his daughters!

Even a follower of God (or one who thinks it is his god who is the true god) is not so pure as to merit my respect.

Paul inflicted his sexual disfunction on Catholic priests in their vows. His " thorn in the flesh" has been postulated by many to have been some STD. No sexually pure believer is as perfect as we think.

Anyway, why the focus on the sexual side of life when drinking / jealousy / greed / gluttony (to name just a few) are equally on the Bible's pages as sin. Jesus said if you think of a sinful act it is the same as having committed it so none are perfect.

AND----who decides what the sins are? Eskimos share their women as Lot was willing to. It is a natural part of their acceptable activities which generates no guilt in them. Theft and lying are their biggies! Check out this delightful video about sin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ogyO3F7Va4&feature=related

Gene, a couple of your statements are puzzling to me.

First of all what "sexual disfunction" does the Bible say Paul had? Where does that come from?

Next, the Catholic church did not exist during Paul's day. In fact, the Catholic church as we understand it did not come into existance for several centuries after Paul lived.

Finally...are you serious in asking me who decides what sin are? God decides and has given man the Bible to explain sin and its consequences. It does not matter one ioda what the Eskimos do or believe.

You said you read your Bible and I accept that. But please allow me to ask you another question since I do not know you or your background...do you believe the Bible?

[Gene Scarborough]

Abel---

We obviously take a different view of things relative to homosexuality. I view it as part of God's Creation, but clearly hated and despised by the Jewish tradition from which our Bible comes. On the other hand, it has existed from the beginnings of humanity and is part of the whole picture.

First of all what "sexual disfunction" does the Bible say Paul had? Where does that come from?

Paul admonishes "no sex." He was expecing the end of days within his lifetime. His letters take a less-averse view of sex as you read them in chronological order. He clearly had some hangups over sex.

Next, the Catholic church did not exist during Paul's day. In fact, the Catholic church as we understand it did not come into existance for several centuries after Paul lived.

The Catholic church's rule of celibacy for it's priests came directly from Paul and it has been a major problem for priests to live up to throughout it's existence.

Finally...are you serious in asking me who decides what sin are? God decides and has given man the Bible to explain sin and its consequences. It does not matter one ioda what the Eskimos do or believe.

I'm not sure you ever took a sociology course. If you had, it would be indisputable that different cultures have different rules. In your view, all cultures would be Jewish---which is not the case. While Jews viewed women as objects of ownership by men with little or no legal rights nor stature, the Egyptian culture of the same day allowed for women to inherit / serve as priests / own land / etc. With respect to women they were in the same day but almost opposite in outlook!

You said you read your Bible and I accept that. But please allow me to ask you another question since I do not know you or your background...do you believe the Bible?

I have no problem believing the Bible. I consider it "inspired." For me it is a "book of faith grounded in history." It tells the story of mankind and the Jews from creation to the last chapter. It gives us the witness to Jesus in the Gospels and descriptions of churches and people struggling to follow him despite their quirks and mis-steps. It further promises the presence of the Holy Spirit to guide us in the present day. It is not a "thing" to be worshiped, but a "witness" to God's relationship to people of Faith.

I don't know you either, but would love to know why you hold the view of the Bible you do. I checked your profile and sent a private message requesting the same so--publically or privately--I am interested in your own faith journey.

[Sandy]

We obviously take a different view of things relative to homosexuality. I view it as part of God's Creation, but clearly hated and despised by the Jewish tradition from which our Bible comes. On the other hand, it has existed from the beginnings of humanity and is part of the whole picture.

Yes, and so has murder. It is also part of God's creation, though, like all other sin, is a consequence of the fall of man. The "Jewish Tradition" that you hold in such contempt, and which you claim renders the scripture's authority limited, was the exact filter through which God intended to reveal himself to the world. It is very easy to distinguish, through the prophets, and through the New Testament, including the very words of Jesus, what God intended and where "Jewish tradition" went out of bounds.

Paul admonishes "no sex." He was expecing the end of days within his lifetime. His letters take a less-averse view of sex as you read them in chronological order. He clearly had some hangups over sex.

I don't see Paul's view of sex being inconsistent anywhere across the spectrum. If you take his writing in context, including the situations in the various cultural settings in which they were written, and what was happening there at the time, Paul's view is very consistent, and because the Holy Spirit inspired him to write it down, it is authoritative for the church.

I have no problem believing the Bible. I consider it "inspired." For me it is a "book of faith grounded in history." It tells the story of mankind and the Jews from creation to the last chapter. It gives us the witness to Jesus in the Gospels and descriptions of churches and people struggling to follow him despite their quirks and mis-steps. It further promises the presence of the Holy Spirit to guide us in the present day. It is not a "thing" to be worshiped, but a "witness" to God's relationship to people of Faith.

Really. Yet you consider its teaching on how to deal with and define sin corrupted by Jewish tradition and Paul's hangups about sex, and you freely interject all kinds of your own presuppositions into your interpretations of it.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Well said Sandy, but I will quibble with the idea that Homosexuality and murder are parts of Gods creation. Both are perversions of Gods creation.

[Abel]

I don't know you either, but would love to know why you hold the view of the Bible you do. I checked your profile and sent a private message requesting the same so--publically or privately--I am interested in your own faith journey.

Here's my story Gene:
My Christian journey began at ten years of age. I was saved on the last night of an old fashion camp meeting. I grew up in a very conservative Southern Baptist church until the time I departed for the military at 18.

Not only did I leave home, I left God. For the next 15 years I lived a backslidden life. I engaged in various forms of sin including alcohol. I became a slobbering drunk. Even though I left God, He did not leave me. In 1998, He began a wonderful transformation in my life.

He restored the joy of my salvation. I began not only attending church, I became involved. I began to study my Bible in earnest and my walk with God changed for the better. After a couple of years the Lord opened the door for me to begin actually serving Him. I was asked to become the men’s Sunday school teacher. I was absolutely terrified. I could not speak in front of a crowd. I told the Lord if that was what He wanted me to do, I would obey, but I could not do it without His help. He helped.

I was more than content to teach Sunday school, but again the Lord asked more of me. I began to feel the Lord calling me to preach. I flatly refused to become a preacher. My past life as a sinner was an obstacle I could not get past. Because of my conservative upbringing, I did not feel God would use such a man as myself to preach the Gospel of Jesus. For three months I refused to answer the call. Every day it seemed as if God’s hand was pressing me more and more. I became uncomfortable where I was in my life and relationship with God. Finally, unable to resist any further, I accepted God’s call.

He paid the way for me to obtain a Christian education through a seminary. I received my Masters of Christian Counseling and am now working on my Master of Divinity. I am licensed and ordained as a Baptist preacher. I served 8 months as an interim pastor for a small Southern Baptist church. I have served the Lord through a nursing home ministry, and for one year I served a radio broadcast our church had. Imagine…being afraid to speak to a small crowd, then preaching live on the radio to thousands. Isn’t God awesome? I now serve as a chaplain for the local sheriff’s department and have been working a jail ministry for over four years now.

My view of the Bible is quite simple. I believe it…all of it. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures. Things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible are without debate to me. If God said it, that settles it whether man agrees with it or not. I believe every position a Christian takes must be supported by scripture. Without scriptural support, all you have is man’s opinion. I do not place much stock in man’s opinion alone.

To cast doubt on certain portions of scripture opens the door to doubt all of the scriptures. To say God’s word concerning homosexuality, for example, does not apply today due to cultural changes, it then becomes easy to doubt other issues such as salvation is by faith alone. Since we live in such an information age where scientific evidence is required for virtually every aspect of life, faith is pushed to the side. Then people adopt a works type salvation and faith is neglected.

[Haruo]

What about when the Bible itself casts doubt on the inspiration of portions of itself, Abel? I'm thinking of cases like Jesus' remarks concerning the Mosaic laws of divorce ("Moses said such and so for reasons other than divine inspiration, and I now teach a contrary rule." to paraphrase) or the places where Paul says certain of his teachings are his own as distinct from God's. Also, how do you deal with variant readings (usually insignificant [except when you start using terms like "plenary verbal"]) but occasionally extensive?

Did your recovery from alcoholism involve any 12-step work, Christian or otherwise? (I'm 27 years sober in AA, myself.)

Glad to hear that God has been able to make great use of your talents and gifts.

[Abel]

What about when the Bible itself casts doubt on the inspiration of portions of itself, Abel? I'm thinking of cases like Jesus' remarks concerning the Mosaic laws of divorce ("Moses said such and so for reasons other than divine inspiration, and I now teach a contrary rule." to paraphrase) or the places where Paul says certain of his teachings are his own as distinct from God's. Also, how do you deal with variant readings (usually insignificant [except when you start using terms like "plenary verbal"]) but occasionally extensive?

Did your recovery from alcoholism involve any 12-step work, Christian or otherwise? (I'm 27 years sober in AA, myself.)

Glad to hear that God has been able to make great use of your talents and gifts.

There are no contradictions between the O.T. law and teachings of Jesus. He expounded the law, but He did not counter the law. In His own words He came to fulfill the law (Matt.5:17)

Just because Paul did not know his words were inspired and thus preserved by God does not mean they weren't. Paul referenced another letter he had written to the Corinthians (I Cor.5:9) that we no longer have. Apparently it was not inspired by God and therefore lost to us. God has preserved His words. The Bible clearly teaches that all scripture is inspired by God. (II Tim.3:16)

Please provide an example of variant readings and I will be glad to discuss them.

I did not attend any 12 step program. I completed a one step program...My soberity is the result of full submission to God. I am glad to hear of your 22 years. I am working on 16 years. To God be the glory.