Baylor officials assail student paper editorial
We have already heard from a number of students, alumni and parents who are, as am I, justifiably outraged over this editorial. Espousing in a Baylor publication a view that is so out of touch with traditional Christian teachings is not only unwelcome, it comes dangerously close to violating university policy, as published in the student handbook, prohibiting the advocacy of any understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching.
- Robert B. Sloan, Baylor University President
Normally, I try to steer clear of tossing ridicule or anything close to it in the general direction of Baylor University. Susan is, after all, a Baylor alum, and I wouldn't want her casting aspersions at my alma mater. Sometimes, though, I can't help but woner if truly President Sloan understands the path he is leading Baylor down. Does he- and by extension Baylor alums- WANT a university that is narrow-minded, short-sighted, and intellectually incapable of accepting what cannot be justified by Scripture?
Yes, I understand that Baylor's mission is very different from many universities. I also understand that it lives by, or at least tries to live by, a different set of standards. Still, I can't help but wonder how censorship qualifies as a Christian value. Nor do I understand how the suppression of dissenting points of view can be defined as "Christian".
The policy states that no editorial stance of student publications should "attack the basic tenets of Christian theology or of Christian morality."
I know I'm going to be in trouble with Susan when I began wading into discussions of Scripture, but are we using the Old Testament or the New Testament as our divining rod here? And are not charity and love integral parts of "Christian theology" of "Christian morality"?
Given the general atmosphere at Baylor these days, you'd have to be a fool not to recognize that the newspaper's editorial board clearly waded in where angels fear to tread. There is no way that taking a stand as they did could be anything but controversial. Shouldn't we be applauding their willingness to voice an opinion that they knew would be greeted with derision?
Lariat Editor Lacy Elwood has said the editorial took a legal rather than a moral stance on the issue, and that the board's views do not necessarily reflect those of the Baylor community.
Last week, the editorial staff in a 5-2 vote supported San Francisco's lawsuit against California seeking to continue performing gay marriages.
"Taking into account equal protection under the law, gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriage as heterosexual couples," the editorial stated.
Personally, I applaud the editorial board for taking a stand they had to know would generate all manner of negative reaction. They certainly haven't been disappointed in that regard.
Perhaps the Baylor community in general, and President Sloan in particular, could benefit by reminding themselves of the value of Christian charity. It would seem that this may have been forgotten somewhere along the road to a dogmatic and lockstep theology.
