More Active Posts
Front Page
Wheaton prof explains divorce policy
 |
 221 Comments |
Editor’s note: Larsen, a Wheaton professor, writes here about a college controversy that’s getting national attention — and distortion, he says, with various media outlets charging that a new inquisition is arising. WOW will welcome a counterpoint from Professor Kent Gramm.
There is no reason why you should know about a faculty member leaving Wheaton College (Wheaton, Illinois), so, in case you did not happen to see the front page story in the Chicago Sun-Times, or the one of the cover of the Metro section of the Chicago Tribune, or the national coverage by ABC or Fox news—not to mention the numerous other media outlets that carried the story—here is a quick recap.
Every year, Wheaton College hires divorced employees or retains newly divorced ones. In the six years I have taught at
Wheaton is the kind of deeply counter-cultural place that thinks that the whole person matters. You couldn’t be a member of a white supremacy group and teach at
The media and blogging story has been one of outrage against Wheaton as a prying, legalistic, puritanical, authoritarian institution. Watching from the inside, this situation has abounded in ironies. First, Gramm in exclusive interviews with major news organizations has defended his right to privacy – to get a quiet divorce that nobody ought to be concerned with except himself, his wife, and the readers of Sun-Times . . . He could have said that he was leaving us and it was nobody’s business why and that really would have been the end of it. In that case, I am quite confident that most members of the Wheaton community would have never even learned that he was getting divorced – it would have been handled in a truly private manner.
Which leads on to a second irony. Gramm has said that he does not want to discuss this because it would put him in a situation where he is being tacitly invited to accuse his wife. In reality, he indicates, a divorce would be better off without the finger pointing. The irony is
This spills into a third irony regarding the outrage over Wheaton’s policy in the general media and blogging world. It has been loudly said hither and yon that
The final irony centers around the issue of hypocrisy. The fact that evangelical Christians are hypocrites is so axiomatic that this card is played in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t sort of way. The classic hypocrite is the one who preaches one thing but does another. If a conservative Christian minister is found to be engaging in behavior which violates traditional Christian standards you can bet the media and the bloggers won’t say that it is happening in their private life and therefore is none of our business. (For example, I don’t recall a chorus of media and blogger voices saying that Ted Haggard was a good preacher and that this professional competence is all that should matter and we and his church employer should not be prying into his private life.) On the other hand, if Christians themselves do enforce their standards rather than break them this somehow also means that they are hypocrites. The blogs are filled with the knowing comment that, according to conservative Christian theology, everyone is a sinner so, ipso facto, the line must be being drawn arbitrarily and therefore should not be drawn at all (as if Christian organizations should not try to weed out spouse-beaters because they can’t successfully enforce a zero-tolerance policy on vanity.)
Well, what’s a Wheatie to do in response to all this? I suppose try, by God’s grace, to live by the Community Covenant. What does it say again?
According to the Scriptures, followers of Jesus Christ will:
Show evidence of the Holy Spirit who lives within them, such as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal. 5:22);
“Put on” compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness, and supremely, love (Col. 3:12-14) . . .
Help us all, O Lord. Amen.
Timothy Larsen is McManis Professor of Christian Thought,
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Kent Gramm, Wheaton College, Wheaton College divorce policy |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
This is well said.
We, as Christians have to understand that if we are living our lives correctly, we will be counter-cultural and misunderstood and criticized and etc.
It is part of the territory. The professor is certainly right to give this sort of explanation, but we must keep in mind that whether such explanations are accepted or not, we must not let public opinion sway our conduct or outlook.
Joseph was planning on divorcing Mary privily. No accusations. No public scorn. No trial. It was credited to him as a thing a righteous man would do.
There are plenty of examples of righteous men pointing out the evil of the prurient curiosities of the rulers in scripture as well. Wheaton should have respected his wishes. It sounds like their policy was too general and over-reaching to be fair to the signer of the “covenant.” They should reconsider their policy in light of this event.
Wheaton college certainly should take care to work at maintaining a godly staff and reflect Christ to the world. That doesn’t mean prying into a matter that would have never come to light if they didn’t insist on “transparency.” Divorce is not ungodly if done for the right reasons. He should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
Another thing, discipline in matters not brought to public attention, as this case would have been if not for Wheaton administration’s insistence, should be handled by the church. Wheaton college appears to be infringing on the authority of the elders.
Well, the only problem I have with it is, how high can you reasonably place the bar? I mean, to insist on sinlessness in the faculty is impossible, because Jesus is the only one who could teach there. Then you start getting into what sins are allowable at one level. Murder? Of course not. Divorce? Maybe or mabye not. Occasional prideful comments? Are we not then establishing a hierarchy of sins? By what authority can we do that? If we are just looking for “patterns of sinful behaviour”, well, EVERYBODY has those. Some are just more visible than others. If we are mainly concerned about our image or the message we’re sending students, are we implying that a sinless life is POSSIBLE? Or that people can be sin-free ENOUGH at some point?
I know bishops are held to higher standards in the bible, but are these guys considered bishops?
Wiglaf,
Does it matter at all that Gramm chose to sign the covenant? He knew what it said, and he knew he could choose to leave Wheaton if he didn’t want to discuss it. He chose otherwise.
Wiglaf - The matter only came to light because the professor did so. The college did not bring it to light, nor would it have done so (the post above makes that abundantly clear).
The college does not create any publicity about the review, which is done to maintain accountability to the agreement (freely entered by the staff) and look for needs for assistance to the staff.
John - If the colege is not acting so as to simply fire anyone who stumbles (which it is not - again, abundantly clear form the post), but to ensure that needs/problems relating to sin issues are addressed, then do you still have the same problem?
If we were to think of the review process more as a couseling intake review (to see what, if any, assistance or counseling is needed), does that spin it differently?
If a conservative Christian minister is found to be engaging in behavior which violates traditional Christian standards you can bet the media and the bloggers won’t say that it is happening in their private life and therefore is none of our business. (For example, I don’t recall a chorus of media and blogger voices saying that Ted Haggard was a good preacher and that this professional competence is all that should matter and we and his church employer should not be prying into his private life.)
Yeah but most bloggers consider Haggard’s preaching to have been as bad or worse than his behavior! His stand against gay rights was damnable in its own right; his antithetical behaviour only underscored the flaws in an ideology of bigotry.
On the other hand, if Christians themselves do enforce their standards rather than break them this somehow also means that they are hypocrites.
This is because “protesting-too-much” evangelicals are too often found secretly breaking all their own whitewashed-sepulcher standards.
If so many Wheaton professors comfortably have divorces and *none* have been dismissed for divorce, why do you have this policy, except to impose unneeded and unhelpful humiliation and shame?
As for the “counseling” option - if it is compulsory or mandatory, it’s still a cause for shame. Shame-based religion is common, but it really isn’t based on anything in the teachings of Jesus.
It is also stated in the TOPIC POST —- “Kent Gramm, a long-serving professor of English, resigned because he did not want to have a conversation about his divorce with the administration.” —-
A minister is very different from a professor. A pastor is to have his household in order, to be the husband of ONE wife. A teacher/professor is not the same, although they should have high morals, etc.
Your mention of Ted Haggard shows disrespect for Kent Gramm. You have taken a man who has sinned, come forth with his sin some time ago, and admitted it. Using Haggard, does not serve you well, but sheds an unfair, unwarranted light on Professor Kent Gramm. Un-fair comparison. I would ask you WHY DID YOU CHOOSE Haggard to make your point?
If Kent Gramm had been a pastor/minister I can understand the concern, and the need to examine the reason for divorce, but as he IS NOT A PASTOR, I find the intrusion into his personal life unfair. Has he been immoral, has anyone accused this man of immoral conduct, IF NOT, then making an issue of his divorce in not right. Wheaton College is not a church, if it were, and Kent Gramm were a pastor, head elder, or elder I could see the examination of his marriage, but in this case NO.
Larson, WHY have you brought this to WoW, what will it profit you or Wheaton to have done this?
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3
Spinoza - Christians are commanded to be accountabile to other Christians, and discipline is supposed to be practiced. Call it counseling or whatever, it is thoroughly scriptural (even if many churches do not practice it anymore).
Voctoria - the Wheaton faculty is in a position of BOTH traditional university teaching and ministry to the student body. They are to be spiritual as well as academic guides and mentors for the students.
The policy is entirely appropriate. The poicy is clearly stated and agreed to by the faculty (and students). The professor chose to disobey a policy that was a condition of his employment (and knowing so, he at least had the decency to resign). The professor is the one who created all this publicity (despite his claimed desire to keep it all quiet), and the professor could have avoided the publicity by complying with his prior agreement.
Timothy Larsen–
This is all rather interesting on several levels, but particularly because of something my dad told me recently.
My dad graduated from Wheaton thirty years ago, and he mentioned recently that Wheaton has changed policy regarding Islam and the exclusive nature of Christianity. Is this really true, and what exactly what he talking about? How does this fit in with the divorce process (because if Wheaton is becoming more open to Islam, I think perhaps you have more serious problems than divorce).
I’ve actually been quite impressed with what I know of Wheaton and the liberal arts education it offers, and it’d be sad if it’s longstanding conservative stance was slipping now.
Cameron,
But what did he sign? Did the covenant state that he would be willing to expose all the dirty details of a divorce with his employer or quit his job? Like I said, exactly how general is this? Is the college attempting to take on the duties of the eldership? I’m sure the college requires membership in the church. So, why can’t they leave it to the elders of that church?
I can understand that Wheaton wants to protect its reputation. I don’t see how prying into Gramm’s life on this issue was doing that.
Like I said, maybe Wheaton is in the right PER THEIR COVENANT, but I still think they should review their covenant policy and I think that is what Gramm is also trying to get them to do.
Christians are commanded to be accountabile to other Christians, and discipline is supposed to be practiced. Call it counseling or whatever, it is thoroughly scriptural (even if many churches do not practice it anymore).
Well maybe you could get Gramm and other divorcee’s to wear a shirt with a big scarlet “D” and remind us all about what is so very contemptible about your interpretation of Christianity.
Wheaton may try to be a church, but it is not one. Its constituents most likely have churches of their own!
My dad graduated from Wheaton thirty years ago, and he mentioned recently that Wheaton has changed policy regarding Islam and the exclusive nature of Christianity.
Maybe they actually did this to bring on line the cutting off of hands or poking out of eyes …
(ok - bong me)
KRM,
YOU WRITE:…
“Voctoria - the Wheaton faculty is in a position of BOTH traditional university teaching and ministry to the student body. They are to be spiritual as well as academic guides and mentors for the students.”
I am more than aware of their standards, however Professor Gramm resigned. Bringing their (Wheaton’s) story to this blog, is not good form, it doesn’t speak well. It should have been settled within the University, even in Professor Gramm’s absence or participation.
Professor Gramm, may have excellent reasons for not making his personal life public. Perhaps the people he was to confide in, —- he didn’t trust, which left him little choice. There is never a clear picture in a case like this.
Spinoza - But wearing the scarlet letter would not be scriptural.
The college is explicitly founded and operated in accordance with scriptural standards of conduct, and everyone who goes is made clear on that count and agrees to abide by it.
It is not as if there is some sort of Spanish Inquisition going on. But those who have some sort of life event that is covered by the poicy need to advise the school of it and submit to some (confidential) inquiry on it.
As little as I (or anyone else) like to be disciplined, it is laudable that the college sticks to it.
KRM,
You write, “As little as I (or anyone else) like to be disciplined, it is laudable that the college sticks to it.”
So you are saying that the college has been granted authority by the covenant to discipline its employees on moral issues unrelated to their job description? That would definitely be unscriptural.
If the covenant is, for real, not mandatory, then I’m not sure what Gramm’s deal is. Everyone should opt out and say that their church is their accountability group.
Wiglaf: At a Christian college all moral issues are related to your job description.
Wiglaf - The morals issues ARE related to the job description.
The college is structured so as to make the moral component part of the faculty’s job function. If a person (all of the staff members are required to sign on, it isn’t just faculty) doesn’t like the deal, one shouldn’t even seek employment there.
Again, the agreement wouldn’t have required the professor to publish private matters for all to see, it would have required him to review the matter confidentially with secified people (and if any issues need to be addressed, then an appropriate method of addressing can be devised).
Victoria - The professor is the one who took the matter to the papers and created all of the publicity.
The college was then placed in the position of having to respond.
I think the response has been appropriately meek.
Joseph was not going to divorce Mary, he was going to PUT her AWAY.
KRM, you may consider it meek, but bringing it to this blog certainly rail-roaded meekness.
PLEASE NOTE:
Khaleej Times Online
Christian leaders ask for Muslim forgiveness
(Wam)
26 November 2007
“ABU DHABI-Peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians stand as one of the central challenges of this century, according to leading Christian leaders.”
Part of letter below which is in the article:
Reg,
“Put her away” = “divorce her”
What did you think “put her away” meant?
Kimberly - 12
YOU WRITE:…”My dad graduated from Wheaton thirty years ago, and he mentioned recently that Wheaton has changed policy regarding Islam and the exclusive nature of Christianity.”
Read my post above…..#25
Thanks, Victoria.
THE LETTER: What is common between us lies not in something marginal nor in something merely important to each. It lies, rather, in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbour.
We appear to be confusing the command to love with the command to stand fast against heresy and false doctrines. Love one another, but do not pretend that we have similar faiths or any sort of religious agreement.
This is sad.
Metatonia and KRM,
I read the rules of the covenant. Is it true that signing is NOT a requirement for employment? If so, then Wheaton college is NOT saying that ALL moral issues in the employee’s life are related to the job description.
It would also make Gramm’s efforts perplexing. Why go through all that effort if you can opt out at any time? Perhaps Gramm has a grudge against the administration? I guess I don’t get it.
26-
for the difference between divorce and putting away:
The word translated “putting away” in Malachi 2:16 is not keriythuwth, the Hebrew word for divorce, but is shalach. See Malachi 2:14-16 in the American Standard Version, 1901, (google for this ). The practice of putting away was cruel and adulterous, but it was not a legal divorce. It was much worse for it ignored the wife’s welfare. She was cast aside and not lived with as a true spouse. (It can apply to both genders).
Scholars today say you can make no distinction between the two words because they were used synonymously. Yes, they were by hard-hearted men. That is what Deut. 24:1-2 and Matt. 19:7-8 were all about. They are not synonymous words; they are actually antonymous. They are the difference between slavery and freedon for one-half of humanity, women, (or as happens in our society, either gender)
Many of us have heard numerous sermons on “God Hates Divorce” based on this passage in Malachi on “putting away.” My thought is that God wants the situation legal. If you are living together, you should be legally married. If you are not living with each other as true spouses, then make it legal by getting divorced so that real marriage can occur with someone else.
In Leviticus 21:14, 22:13, and Numbers 30:9, some isolated references to divorced women. The word translated divorce in all these cases is another word, the Hebrew word garash, meaning “to drive out from a possession,” and was divorce only in the sense that the women had been driven out. The word used is the very same word used repeatedly in Exodus 6:1, 23:28, 29, 30, 31, 33:2, 34:11, when the Bible spoke of driving out the Canaanites and Hivites from the land. It also, like shalach, is a harsh word, “to thrust out,” containing none of the protection for women of Deut. 24:1-3, and the word for written divorce, keriythuwth, in her hand.
Luke 16:18, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. The New Testament word translated “put away” is a form of the Greek word, apoluo. It is the Greek word apostasion which is the technical term for a bill or writing of divorce as far back as 258 BC. Again, many, who are hard-hearted, and don’t believe in the rights of both spouses, use these two terms as synonyms. The distinction between “put away” and “divorce” between these Greek words is critical. Apoluo dismissed the woman, but left her married, put away, with no rights, no recourse, and deprived of the basic right to monogamous marriage. Apostasion ended marriage and permitted a legal subsequent marriage.
In 1611, the KJV inconsistently translated apoluo in Matt. 5:31-32,”…and marrieth her that is divorced comitteth adultery. In the New Testament, forms of apoluo appear 69 times but only in this one instance, (in KJV) is it translated divorce. If it had been traslated in harmony with the rest of the KJV, it would say, “And whosoever shall marry her who has been put away (or abandoned or dismissed, etc.) committeth adultery.”
The Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, Matt. 5:32b reads, “And whosoever marries a woman who is separated, but not divorced, commits adultery.” Luke 16:18b reads, “He who marries the on ewho is illegally separated commits adultery.” This translation highlights the misunderstanding made possible by that inconsistent KJV translation of Matt. 5:32.
The translation error was corrected in the American Standard Version of the Bible, 1901. Imagine overcoming 270 years of reading “divorced”. that 1611 KJV mistranslation in this one instance has so dominated our thinking that virtually all modern translations sya “divorced,” not just in that one place, but in ALL 11 places. They completely ignore the correction provided by the 1901 American Standard Version, and ignore the distinction between the two words.
With “divorced” in our minds instead of “separated, but not divorced” or “put away” we have assumed that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. We have assumed “divorced” was said in these passages when in every instance the Greek text actually says “put away.” Woud our theology/lives be different today is that word had been translated “put away?”
In Young’s Analytical Concordance, the following verses use “putting away.” or apoluo
Mtt.1:19, 5:31,32, (but not at the end of the verse), 19:3, 7,8,9,9, Mark 10:2,4,11,12, Luke 16:18, 18(compare this to Matt. 5:32
In the Old Testament, shalach, “to send forth” is found in
Deut. 22:19, Isaiah 50:1, Jer. 3:1, 8
Mt. 19:9
Whosoever shall put away (separate from) his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away (separated) committeth adultery.
This verse says nothing about WHY one can get divorced. It simply says not to marry someone who is (separated) not legally divorced.
It told the men that they had to obey rules, just like the court does with my ex-husband today.
You have to read it with the use of the phrase putting away, which is in the original and which you will NOT find in most modern translations.
Part of our problem here is that we can’t allow for the possiblily that our beloved theologians could be wrong.
“As long as the parents aren’t abusing each other it’s not a bad idea to stay together for the sake of the children”
No DUH!!! What a novel idea, God came up with it first though,
This is what God is saying in Mal. 2:15,16 when he talks about the fact that He made the two one because “He sought a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. FOR I HATE PUTTING AWAY…”
abusing, neglecting, putting away…God hates it
There is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Both the New and Old Testament are inspired, but we are no longer under the LAW (Old Testament) but GRACE (New Testament) -
Christ came to earth to die for our sins, the Law (Old Testament) was replaced by GRACE, when Christ died on the Cross - It’s by GRACE we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the Cross, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior -
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
There are groups who say that “we are not under law for our salvation but we are under the law for sanctification” …this isn’t true and it misuses passages from the Bible, and side-steps context.
Old Testament LAW was replaced, when Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary - No longer were animal sacrifices of blood required to cover sin … Jesus blood on the Cross was the price paid for our sin IF we BELIEVED on Him for our Salvation.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
Victoria - Should the college have stayed silent in the face of the atacks on it? That seems a bit past meek to me.
Reg
We all feel badly for you, some of us have prayed for your situation.
Isn’t it time you forgive him? Forgiveness is a freeing experience, it allows us to grow. When we continue to hold a grudge, and bitterness it hurts the one holding these thoughts and doesn’t hurt the one they are bitter with one tiny bit.
The point is the error in our Bibles
Good work Timothy Larsen. I look forward to having you in class sometime over the next four years. I am honestly surprised, because I have yet to discover something, in policy or otherwise, that I disagree with about Wheaton. It seems too good to be true. I’m not naive, and I’m sure the general imperfection of this world will sooner or later catch up with my range of perception concerning Wheaton, but until that day, props to it.
There are two sides to this issue, and as usual, people are confusing them, resulting in “failure to communicate.” What a surprise.
The first is whether Wheaton’s administration has the right to require it’s employees and customers to adhere to this policy. Absolutely. No question. As a private organization, they have every right to put whatever voluntary conditions on employment and customership that they please. Even from a purely material perspective, they are trying to maintain a certain image and quality of product that will draw the brightest Christian kids from around the world. That’s from a purely secular, pessimistic viewpoint. Beyond that, they’re also trying to maintain a special atmosphere of Christianity. They are not trying to be a church, per se, but they are trying to be a community of believers, which is after all the REAL meaning of a church. That also is overlooked time and time again by Christians. They’re not disciplining this professor, they are simply doing what seems best to maintain what they’ve been building since circa 1860.
The second side of the issue is whether Wheaton’s administration SHOULD have done what they did. That is the true question. That’s what this discussion should be over. And we, honestly, don’t really have a right to make that judgment.
REG, I’m not going to argue this with you, … you have tried to make this point over and over again. Please examine your motives.
Victoria, I think it’s a bit bold to assume that Reg holds a grudge of this kind. That said, some grudges are very, very hard to lose. Have you ever had the misfortune to live with one of these? You are absolutely right that forgiving is a freeing experience, and that it is the best, and it is even commanded, by both Testaments. But that doesn’t make it any easier.
It’s one thing if a Professor of a Christian college leaves, and feels very sad and disappointed, it’s another think when the college, or faculty want to debate the issue in public.
And the world watches, what a SHAME!
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Romans 12
Vic, to be fair, Wheaton is being the voice of reason here, and running damage control. That’s hardly vengeance. The arguments that you yourself make/participate in generally come far closer to vengeful vendettas.
Cicero
This has been going for some time here, having said that I hope you understand that people have prayed and have tried to be understanding.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 6
Victoria - THe professor who resigned rather than comply with the policy took the debate publis. He is the one who went to all of the newspapers and media to draw attention to the college’s policy.
The college really has little choice but to publicly respond to some degree. THe tenor of their response has been rather admrable.
Cicero, if you feel I am vengeful that is your right. I’m sorry you feel that way.
Your comment doesn’t take away from the fact that this situation could be settled by ‘letting it go’ trusting the LORD for HIS way of handling it. Professor Gramm isn’t at Wheaton any longer, whether he writes articles, conducts interviews on TV should not concern Wheaton.
KRM, I can see your point to some degree, but it doesn’t need to be drawn out, and I hardly see the point of bringing it to the blog.
I believe what is contained in my post #25 is very troubling. That makes me PAUSE! In fact it makes Professor Gramm’s situation very small, compared to the ‘letter’ -
Each of the Wheaton apologist’s arguments is defective.
1. Gramm, the divorced professor, is admirable and likable, yet his divorce tripped a search warrant for the discreet custodians of the community to examine his life for a secret pattern of sin. Most likely, he’s benign, but the lab needs to do a biopsy. In other words, the divorced professor is accountable for the suspicions or curiosity of others.
2. The public acknowledgment of divorce doesn’t compromise the privacy of the reasons for divorce. A judgment of divorce creates a public record; the causes and the blame remain private. The Wheaton apologist confuses the public and private sides of divorce and so accuses Gramm of self-contradictory purposes. He also accuses Gramm of “dragging his partner’s name through the mud.” Where’s the mud, and how could a likable and admirable man do such a thing?
3. Just because there’s no law against Wheaton’s system of voluntary association and expulsion doesn’t mean that observers can’t deplore it and get all superior, if they want.
4. The apologist reduces the problem of an individual’s relationship with the community to an insoluble public relations puzzle. “The whole person” doesn’t matter, after all. Wheaton has to do what it has to do to avoid unfair accusations of “hypocrisy,” because that’s far more dangerous to a Christian organization than accusations of self-righteousness, judgmentalism, and authoritarianism.
Wheaton College has expelled students over anonymous rumors. Wheaton is a deeply counter-cultural place in which the community counts more than the individual.
But that’s just it, Victoria. You could take the passive way out, and let God’s truth speak, without getting all vituperative sometimes.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” — Matthew 7:13
“Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.” — James 1:23-25
The letter troubles me too, Victoria. In our day and age, reconciling Biblical commands and accepted cultural marriage practices can be complicated (I have an opinion, but that is a moot point now); BUT partnering with Islam to find a common bond between the two religious should stop us in our tracks.
36-
It would be more useful for each person to share the pain/stories/triumphs from their own lives with those who listen, and God’s work will be clearly seen.
We used to do this in our church on Sunday nights in “Body Life” services.
Cicero
YOU WRITE:…..
“But that’s just it, Victoria. You could take the passive way out, and let God’s truth speak, ithout getting all vituperative sometimes.”
Try not to get carried away Cicero “vituperative” ? —– what I said was neither slanderous, or abusive.
Maybe Wheaton needs to examine the plank in their eyes.
36-
47-
I am not opposed to examining my motives;
I am for each one telling about oneself and not judging another
The letter does not trouble me at all. As long as we as Christians are acknowledging the truth, we can not go wrong.
Kimberly you remark, “BUT partnering with Islam to find a common bond between the two religious should stop us in our tracks.”
It should give every single Believer and Americans, a reason to question anyone who would sign a letter such as this one.
The “Evangelical Manifesto” will be released tomorrow - I am most interested to read it in its final form, and KNOW who every single signer is.
I believe that letter I referred to in post #25 was only a prelude to the “Evangelical Manifesto” -
Cicero, if the letter in post #25 doesn’t bother you, then it would appear you can UNIFY with anything, apologize for rebuking false religion, and not feel a twinge of guilt.
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;</b.
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry
2 Timothy 4
I’m not apologizing for rebuking false religion, I’m apologizing for false Christians ASSAULTING false religions in the name of Christ.
Now, as your own quoted verses say so eloquently, lets try to be friends with all men, do the work of an evangelist, turn the other cheek, and let God do the judging of the quick and the dead.
It might appear to you that I can unify with anything, but it appears to me that your vision is most clouded.
Cicero
YOU WRITE:….
“I’m apologizing for false Christians ASSAULTING false religions in the name of Christ.”
Who are you calling a “false Christians” ? You might have a problem with REBUKING those who teach/preach a false doctrine, but I don’t. You can call it “ASSAULTING” and feel justified to have made it an abuse issue, which is a wrong use of the word ‘assaulting’ or you can use the word REBUKE which is in the Word of GOD, and used to call out those who teach a doctrine or support a cult, etc., which is not of GOD.
You missed verse 2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”
Exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine is hardly what I am apologizing for. I am apologizing for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and every other religious war in history that men have waged in the name of Christ. And yes, many if not most of the men in those wars were gravely wrong.
Cicero,
If you want to use that idea as a crutch to apologize to the Muslims, go ahead.
GOD has never told us to apologize for things we haven’t done, to do so would be lying.
I can’t apologize for anyone except myself, I can’t apologize to GOD or anyone else for the sins of anyone, dead or alive, that will not get them into Heaven. The Mormons believe you can be baptized for others no matter who they are, relatives etc, and that absolves them, they will be in Heaven. Nothing Scriptural about it.
This idea of apologizing for the sins of people who I don’t know, never met, lived who knows how long ago, is nonsense.
Now if my child does something, which causes harm to another, I would be expect and WOULD apologize for the actions of my child, since I am responsible for them.
You miss the point. I’m not apologizing as you seem to interpret it. I am well aware that I personally bear no responsibility for these religious wars, though I certainly have held the necessary prejudice and hatred and darkness in my heart, as have you, as has every other human. I’m not apologizing for the Crusaders to absolve them, I’m apologizing to Muslims and others who have historically been aubsed by the institutional church to build trust between me and other humans who need what I have dwelling in my heart. It doesn’t matter that the Muslims have committed their fair share and more of atrocities. It only matters that I would love to be able to reach them.
Cicero,
YOU POST:….
“You miss the point. I’m not apologizing as you seem to interpret it. I am well aware that I personally bear no responsibility for these religious wars”
You have made NO POINT, thats just the POINT.
If you hold NO RESPONSIBILITY then there is no reason to apologize.
YOU POST:….
“….though I certainly have held the necessary prejudice and hatred and darkness in my heart, as have you, as has every other human”
You will do well to ONLY SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, for whatever hatred you have held in your heart for whomever, however, don’t include me in your statement, I am more than able to search my heart and ask GOD’s forgiveness of my sins, and anyone whom I have hurt.
Take responsibity for YOURSELF Cicero, you aren’t in charge of others hearts and repentance for whatever sins you think they have committed!
The expectation of a “conversation” is entirely appropriate on many levels. No, he is not a pastor…but he is a shepherd of young Christians. If he is in sin, he is not fit to lead them. Second, he signed the covenant. Third, it sounds like the administration is very discreet in this. Fourth, Wheaton actually allows more “grace” on this than many Christian colleges (which sometimes do not allow divorced professors, or professors married to divorced spouses whether or not they themselves are divorced, no matter what the reason for the divorce).
The college should care about Christian standards, and, honestly, should be willing to fire a professor whose divorce is because of his own sin. Christian colleges have standards of what theology a person will believe; why not also how they will live their lives, on important issues such as this one. Should a professor be allowed to be an open homosexual? openly living with someone outside of marriage? I’d say no–and I’d also say that he should be accountable if he is getting divorced.
I know of a case where a woman brought scandal to the Christian community because she was living with a boyfriend to whom she was not married. The organization where she worked didn’t know about the issue…until her boyfriend murdered her and her living situation made the local paper. She was head of a crisis pregnancy center, which teaches sexual purity. Our “private” conduct does matter–especially when we are in a position to be examples to young people.
BTW, one benefit of such a policy is that it may make a person heading toward sin think twice, and not act. Shame and accountability are powerful motivators, and should be.
Victoria, there you go again, just discrediting a point without even addressing it’s logic. And it offends me that you put yourself above everybody else as to the darkness that you and I both know is indigenous to every human heart, redeemed or otherwise. You are part and parcel of the human race, and you share in all of it’s triumphs and failings. I didn’t even touch on asking for God’s forgiveness and cleansing, but that of course goes without saying. I also never set myself over anyone else…EVER…which you consistently seem to.
And there absolutely is a reason to apologize. Though it is not necessary, as you said, it is grounded in truth and can be a good way to establish trust with people. Besides, it is written that the sins of the fathers can pass on to the children. I’d apologize to you, for that reason alone, but firstly it wouldn’t be grounded in truth, and secondly, you’d reject me out of hand.
Cicero,
YOU WRITE:….
“And there absolutely is a reason to apologize. Though it is not necessary, as you said, it is grounded in truth and can be a good way to establish trust with people.”
No Cicero, there is no reason to apologize for a crime, or abuse, or war, or anything else which I have not done or been part of.
Apologizing for something one has not done is not “establishing trust” but it does reveal that the person apologizing is LYING, and as YOU put it “can be a good way to establish trust with people” ….. I would trust no one, who lied to me, apologized for something that happened years ago, which they had nothing to do with.
There is NO TRUST IN A LIE, or the person who LIES!
Very well stated, Cheryl.
………I would respect somebody strongly if they went against the grain and did something selfless like that, Victoria. You would probably call their well-intentioned act a lie, however. I, on the other hand, would see anything well-intentioned as establishing trust. You, on the first hand, choose to see antagonism in everything, and respond in kind. That is the difference between you and me. And I don’t think this difference will get resolved either, since I have no intention of becoming like you.
And if I did something well-meaning for you, as I have countless times by the way, I would be highly affronted if you called it a lie, which is to you is probably the greatest insult imaginable. Not that that particular viewpoint is wrong, it’s just a little anti-social to apply it in such a cavalier manner…
Victoria is your sister in Christ, Cicero. If she writes something you find offensive, turn the other check and let is go.
Outkast,
YOU WRITE:…. “If she writes something you find offensive, turn the other check and let is go.”
I simply do not agree with whoever Cicero is, I have no idea if this person is a Believer, or whether they are female or male.
Discussing something as everyone does here on the blog is not wrong. If you feel this strongly Outkast, why don’t you advise Cicero to do as you have asked me?
64-
The perception that “someone is your sister in Christ” is not something for a third party to determine. That has to be something that each person comes to grip with on their own before God.
And it is not done only through doctrinal verification, but through repeated character patterns, and those, in this case, only in writing.
Cicero,
Why don’t you give us Scripture that instructs Believers to apologize to others for things they have not done, had no part in, would never have thought of doing, especially hundreds of years ago.
Then explain how lying to make peace with others by apologizing is Scriptural. What peace can come from a lie…..both the apologizer and the one getting the apology know its a lie.
Outkast, I’m not sure why you choose to apply this standard to me only. I am well aware that she is my sister in Christ. I’m also a little put out that she says she doesn’t know whether I’m a believer or not. That should be more than obvious from what I say. My gender should be obvious from my name. But you have a good point, though I think you’re misguided, preaching to the choir, if you will. I’m done with this argument. This is a thread about Wheaton college and any posts I make on it will be relevant to myself and it.
But once again Victoria, you completely mischaracterize my position and then attack it. That’s a common logical fallacy. It’s called a straw man argument. It’s a really bad habit and it makes you look bad. Just letting you know, since you don’t seem to realize it yourself. You have a nice night.
67-
It is attitudes that we hold and assume
Cicero: I was trying to step in between the two of you and encourage a truce.
Reg: I have determined from my past conversations with Victoria that she is a believer in Christ. Enough said. (One does not have to sing the Psalms only to be a believer either.)
By the way, Reg, your linguistic gymnastics of trying to parse “put away” and “divorce” is quite laughable.
the Darby reads the same way
Cicero,
I thought Outkast’s post was to me, but in fact was to you.
YOU WRITE:….”I’m also a little put out that she says she doesn’t know whether I’m a believer or not.”
It was not obvious to me, mostly because you cannot back up what you have said with Scripture. To my knowledge GOD doesn’t tell us to lie with an apology to make friends or build relationships, if you have Scripture to back up what you believe then you should post it.
YOU WRITE:….”My gender should be obvious from my name.”
I have never heard the name ‘Cicero’ before, so it is not obvious to me at all.
According to Merriam-Webster, an apology “usually applies to an expression of regret for a mistake or wrong with implied admission of guilt or fault and with or without reference to mitigating or extenuating circumstances.” Based on that, to apologize for something done by a third party does not make sense. I would not call it lying, which I consider an outright falsehood, but it rather muddies the matter of where guilt actually belongs.
I think it can be quite correct to simply express regret for the fact that a mistake or wrong was committed by a third party, without using the word apology with its implied admission of guilt.
Cicero
YOU WRITE:….
“But once again Victoria, you completely mischaracterize my position and then attack it.</b. That’s a common logical fallacy. It’s called a straw man argument. It’s a really bad habit and it makes you look bad. Just letting you know, since you don’t seem to realize it yourself.”
I attacked the fact that you believe apologizing for something one hasn’t done is right, when in fact it’s LYING, No straw man argument at all.
Definition for STRAW MAN
1. front for somebody: somebody who acts as a front for somebody else’s questionable or illegal activities
2. unimportant issue or person: an issue or person of little significance, put forward to be easily defeated
3. figure made of straw: a straw figure made to resemble a human being
The definition should help you in the future!
When I moved to the south after living in the north all my life, I went through regret for previously assumed attitudes after revisiting the civil war history and realized that I could not hold the views that I had assumed all of my life up to that point.
My apology Outkast for reading your post incorrectly.
75
could you please provide the source of your information?
REG,
The Dictionary
THANK YOU PAULINE!
Outkast, thank you for trying, but there is no truce in sight between Victoria and me.
Victoria, you seem to think you know more than you know. Cicero is a pretty well-known historical figure, but I’ll leave it up to you to research it. And your dictionary must not be complete. And for the record, as Pauline pointed out, you HAVE mischaracterized my argument. I think you see only what you want to see.
74, 79,
Perhaps you could give the name of your dictionary?
Outkast,
It is one thing to insult another’s views, it is another to interact over how yours might be different. Interact with the text and show how the 1901 American Standard Version and the Darby (which read the same on the divorce passages) say something different from what I am saying.
You might recall that this is where our conversation ended before on this issue.
And by the way, Outkast, what Reg is saying is not linguistic gymnastics at all, as you would probably see if you considered the issue with an open mind, but rather the crucial distinction between what makes sense for God to want and what does not.
Cicero,
I don’t agree with apologizing to win friendship, or making a relationship, its that simple.
There are many historical names, because I wasn’t familiar with your name shouldn’t upset you to the point of