Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Ooh, not done yet.

Apparently, gay people are so dangerous, that the "University of the Cumberlands" couldn't stand to have Johnson on campus for one more day, let alone the rest of the semester.

Lexington Herald Leader: "Reaction grows to gay student's expulsion"
Louisiville Courier Journal: "Student expelled from University of the Cumberlands for being gay"

Get Religion has commentary that I think gets to the heart of the legal/ethical issues.

I wonder if they're going to purge their entire theatre department next? Let's see some consistency...


naak said...

Hey Kyle,

To start off I want to quote Jason Johnson, "What I would hope is that their faith is renewed because people are standing up for what they believe in" (Lexington Herald-Leader). I think that it is awesome that a Baptist school is standing up for what they believe in. Whether you look at the Old or New Testaments you are going to find it pretty clear that the act of homosexuallity is a sin, those who commit the sin should be rebuked, and those who refuse to repent should be removed from the fellowship. Now even though those instructions were given for the churches, I find no reason why it should not apply here.

So here is the issues at hand. Is homosexuallity a sin when one has the temptation or commits the act. It is clear in Scripture that one who lust for a woman is sinning, and if a man has sex outside of marriage he sins. But if the devil tempts him is that a sin? No. The same should go for homosexuallity. We all have different ways that the devil chooses to tempt us. We are all different and therefore our weaknesses are different. So if one is tempted by the devil to lust in, or commit a homosexual act they are not sinning until they either lust or commit the act. This idea that because some have unnatural feelings toward one of the same sex does not mean that they were created with the purpose of being a homosexual, no more then saying someone who has unnatural feeling to have sex with other mans wife therefore God has created him to be an adulterer. I hope that had made since.

Secondly, did the University confront and rebuke him or did they just remove him. It is clearly a Christian things to remove the sinful from our midst who claim to be breathern, but there is also a process that we must go though. It is not the purpose of discipline to get rid of sinful people, or none of us would have been aloud in. It is to pursue the sanctification of the individual and the body.

Thirdly, did the student know full well what was expected of him? It appears to some degree that he did not. I think that the school should have made him aware of the consequences if he remained in his sin and that he would be required to relocate to a differnt school after the end of the semester if he failed to repent. Then it should have been a missioin of the the school to make sure that all incoming students were aware of the requirement prior in coming, whether it be in regard to homosexuallity or any other issue.

The school had done the right thing in holding its students to a level that Jesus and His Apostles held there disciples and churches to. The question then becomes have they done it in the proper way--in a manner of love.

just some thoughts,

Peter said...

But is a University or college bound by the same communal rules as the Church?

Anonymous said...

I don't think a university is a church (and vice versa) and that it ought not be bound under the same ecclesiological nuances denominations have forged for themselves (or formed by God, depending on which side of the fence you're on)

If we're going to be so strict as to only allow like-people onto our campuses, all white people would have to go for me... That is extreme, but this is better. I believe that credo(only) baptism is incorrect, and what is not correct may be labeled as wrong, and what is wrong may be labeled as sinful. So, if you're a baptist, I don't believe you should be allowed to express your mode of baptism in my churches (This is an example...)

There really is room for varyong opinions in the body of christ regarding the atonement, the end times, salvation (gasp!), eccesiology, and even, god-forbid, sexual preference.

But, that's just my two cents...

Kyle said...

Naak, I'll certainly agree with you (obviously) that it isn't apparent that the college administration showed this kid the degree of grace they could have and probably should have.

I'll follow Peter and Mike here, and state that the University of the Cumberlands may choose whatever policies they wish, but I would never want a college I attended to consider itself equivalent to an ecclesial entity, or even to try to have the same polity as a church.

It is clear that the University doesn't wish to have such a mission, but I think it's preferable for Christian colleges to take on students who are "wayward" or not Christians in order to provide them a place in which they can receive the love and hospitality of Christians. Whatever grace that the community of U of the C might have offered Johnson can be offered no longer because he is "officially" a homosexual.

And I think that's sad.

Kyle said...

Haha, sorry.