1 October 2014 A.D. THEOLOGICAL REPRESSION: Gordon College will lose accredition over Sexual Ethical Standards and Centuries of Moral Theology
1 October
2014 A.D. THEOLOGICAL
REPRESSION: Gordon College will lose accredition
over Sexual Ethical Standards and Centuries of Moral Theology
Hall, Amy. “Gordon College Will Lose Accreditation over Behavioral Standards.” Stand to Reason. 1 Oct 2014. http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/10/gordon-college-will-lose-accreditation-over-behavioral-standards.html. Accessed 2 Oct 2014.
Gordon College Will Lose Accreditation over Behavioral Standards
Gordon
College has been given 18 months to
recant.
If they do not change the standards for sexual behavior in their “life and conduct
statement”
(which prohibit “sexual relations outside of marriage” and “homosexual
practice”), they will lose their
accreditation*:
The higher
education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges met
last week and "considered whether Gordon College's traditional inclusion
of 'homosexual practice' as a forbidden activity" runs afoul of the
commission's standards for accreditation, according to a joint statement from NEASC and Gordon
College.
The
commission asked Gordon College to submit a report next September. The report
should describe the process by which the college has approached its review of
the policy “to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are
non-discriminatory,” the statement said….
In its joint
statement, NEASC and Gordon College called the review process a “period of
discernment” that will take place over the next 12 to 18 months…. [The
president of NEASC’s higher education commission] said the long time frame that
Gordon College has been allowed for the review is appropriate considering that
Gordon College's policy is "deeply embedded in the culture of the
college" and such things "don't change overnight."
How
reasonable of the commission to give Gordon College 18 months to come to terms
with overturning the thousands-of-years-old Christian view of acceptable sexual
behavior.
This
18-month reprieve is nothing but theater, of course. Gordon College will not
convince the commission their standards are “non-discriminatory.” Gordon
College will explain the difference between behavior and identity, between a
person with same-sex attractions who agrees with the biblical standards and one
who doesn’t, and the difference between banning a person because of his sexual
orientation
and banning particular
behaviors
among all students that go against the biblical view. And then the commission
will reject it.
How do I
know this? Because this is what happened earlier this year when Gordon College
publicly argued for the “right of
faith-based institutions to set and adhere to standards which derive from our
shared framework of faith.” That controversy ended with the termination of their
city contract
to maintain Salem’s historical Old Town Hall and their student teachers being removed from public
schools.
Here’s what the college said then:
In our
statement of faith and conduct we affirm God’s creation of marriage, first
described in Genesis, as the intended lifelong one-flesh union of one man and
one woman. Along with this positive affirmation of marriage as a male-female
union, there are clear prohibitions in the Scriptures against sexual relations
between persons of the same sex.
It is
important to note that the Gordon statement of faith and conduct does not
reference same-sex orientation—that is, the state of being a person who
experiences same-sex attraction—but rather, specifically, homosexual acts. The
Gordon community is expected to refrain from any sexual
intercourse—heterosexual or homosexual; premarital or extramarital—outside of
the marriage covenant. There is currently much debate among Christians about
the nature and causes of homosexuality, and about a faithful Christian response
to same-sex attractions, but we acknowledge that we are all sinners in need of
grace, all called to redeemed humanity in Christ.
We recognize
that students at Gordon who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction
have often felt marginalized and alone, and recognize the pressing need for a
safe campus environment for all students.
That wasn’t
enough then, and it certainly won’t be enough now. But it should be.
Setting
standards for sexual behavior is not the same as discrimination against people
because of their sexual orientation—it’s not discrimination against single
people because of their heterosexual orientation, and it’s not discrimination
against gay people because of their homosexual orientation.
Consider
this: I can think of three names off the top of my head right now of people who
have same-sex attractions (and are open about it) who support the boundaries
Christianity sets around sexuality and write for esteemed and popular conservative
evangelical Christian ministries and/or whose books I recommend: Nick Roen, Sam Allberry, and Wesley Hill. No one is interested in
kicking them out of anything because of their same-sex attractions, because that is not the issue. The issue is whether or
not they subscribe to and live by the biblical view of sexuality, not their
sexual orientation. There is a relevant distinction between the two.
Therefore,
just as having a sexual behavior standard for people with opposite-sex
attractions is not an act of discrimination against heterosexual people, so
having the same standard for people with same-sex attractions is not an act of
discrimination against homosexual people. But the commission won’t see this
because our culture is no longer capable of making a distinction between
“sexual identity” and behavior.
Richard John
Neuhaus’s thoughts on how “Identity Is Trumps” in our society give
some insight into why behavioral standards will be tolerated less and less. He
explains that when behavior is identity, “what we will do is what we must do”:
Here
disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of
others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on
that most high god, “My Identity.” …
[T]heir
demand is only for “acceptance,” leaving no doubt that acceptance means assent
to what they know (as nobody else can know!) is essential to being true to
their authentic selves. Not to assent is not to disagree; it is to deny their
humanity….
Whatever the
issue, the new orthodoxy will not give an inch, demanding acceptance and
inclusiveness, which means rejection and exclusion of whatever or whomever
questions their identity, meaning their right to believe, speak, and act as
they will, for what they will do is what they must do if they are to be who
they most truly are.
If Stand to
Reason still has tax-exempt status in five years, I will be very, very
surprised.
___________________
*From the U.S.
Department of Education: “Accreditation is the recognition that an
institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission
to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials
for professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that
education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels
of quality.”
Comments
Post a Comment