/
Baylor Univ. returns LGBT church activism grant after backlash

Baylor Univ. returns LGBT church activism grant after backlash

Link Successfully Copied
Facebook
Twitter/X
Truth Social
Gab
Email
Print

Baylor Univ. returns LGBT church activism grant after backlash

What caused Baylor to change its mind about the grant? Maybe it feared losing faithful supporters ... or learned the press release was a bad decision ... or succumbed to public pressure. More likely, though, Baylor faced the potential loss of major donors to the school.

Baylor University will “rescind their acceptance” of a $643,000 grant to promote LGBT “inclusion and belonging” in Christian churches, university President Linda Livingstone announced Wednesday in a letter published on the university website. The school announced the grant in a June 30 press release (which has been deleted from their website), but nine days later, the Baptist university “voluntarily offered” to return the money after pushback.

The grant would facilitate LGBT-identifying young adults to discuss their experience of “institutional betrayal” in churches, which “might involve exclusion from church activities, family estrangement, and painful conflicts.” It would also aim to “nurture institutional courage and foster change.”

This dual purpose enabled Livingstone to provide a nuanced rationale behind Baylor’s decision to cancel the project. “Our concerns did not center on the research itself,” she said, “but rather on the activities that followed as part of the grant. Specifically, the work extended into advocacy for perspectives on human sexuality that are inconsistent with Baylor’s institutional policies, including our Statement on Human Sexuality.”

Baylor’s 'Statement on Human Sexuality'

Livingstone linked to Baylor’s Statement on Human Sexuality, which reads as follows:

“Baylor University welcomes all students into a safe and supportive environment in which to discuss and learn about a variety of issues, including those of human sexuality. The University affirms the biblical understanding of sexuality as a gift from God. Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm. Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching.”

This statement provokes a clash of inconsistent reactions. On one hand, it should stand as a positive sign that Baylor’s administration has taken the time to think through and develop a position of such pressing cultural and ethical importance. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine a weaker statement on biblical sexuality. Its low view of biblical authority results in a low view of ethical expectations. This requires further explanation.

First, Baylor articulates a low view of biblical authority. The only thing the university affirms from Scripture is “sexuality as a gift from God,” a vague phrase that fails to even contain a verb, thus making it an incomplete thought. In the next sentence, Baylor recognizes “purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman” as a biblical norm, but it grounds this not so much in biblical truth as in church tradition.

This low view of biblical authority leads Baylor to a low view of ethical expectations for its students. After recognizing man-woman marriage as a norm, Baylor next identifies “both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior” as deviations from this norm. The next logical step would be a prohibition against such deviant behavior among students. Even students who are not born-again Christians can and should be voluntarily held to this standard if they place themselves under the authority of a Christian university. But Baylor does no such thing. The only expectation it sets for students is that they “not participate in advocacy groups” that contradict biblical teaching.

Baylor’s statement appears even weaker in contrast to other statements on human sexuality.

Consider the Sexuality Statement of Azusa Pacific University (APU), which declares, “the full behavioral expression of sexuality is to take place within the context of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman and that individuals remain celibate outside of the bond of marriage. Therefore, we seek to cultivate a community in which sexuality is embraced as God-given and good and where biblical standards of sexual behavior are upheld.” The APU statement then sets forth six foundational principles taken directly from biblical passages in Genesis, Matthew, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. APU has had its own compromises, such as lifting “its ban on LGBTQ relationships on campus” in 2019; nevertheless, its sexuality statement is far more strident.

Tellingly, the strongest sentence in Baylor’s Statement on Human Sexuality is also the most unnecessary one. Baylor opens its statement by welcoming “all students into a safe and supportive environment.” Because this gesture has no relevance to the Bible’s view of human sexuality, its inclusion speaks volumes. This sentence serves no purpose but to placate pro-LGBT students who would otherwise be offended by a statement endorsing a biblical position on human sexuality, however milquetoast that endorsement might be.

Yet Baylor did issue a statement on human sexuality, recognizing its need to calm the worries among donors, parents, and denominational sponsors that the university had drifted from its Christian moorings. The official university stance did (and does) affirm a biblical view of human sexuality, but it failed (and fails) to do so forcefully. In essence, Baylor University finds itself caught between two worlds, trying at once to please both Christians and a culture opposed to core Christian teachings.

Inconsistent objectives

The rest of Livingstone’s letter confirms the inconsistent objectives of this double-mindedness. “Please be assured that Baylor’s institutional beliefs and policies remain unchanged,” she reassured Christian sponsors. “Our commitment to our Christian mission and our historic Baptist identity continues to guide our approach.” But she also assuaged Baylor’s LGBT constituency by stating, “We remain committed to providing a loving and caring community for all — including our LGBTQIA+ students.”

Perhaps the inconsistency boils down to confusion over the identity of a “caring Christian community.” Since God is love (1 John 4:8) and God’s word is truth (John 17:17), Christian love and Christian truth can never be separated (2 John 1:1-3). This means that Christians do not love sinners by condoning or ignoring their sin, but by warning them of the wrath of God and urging them to repent and be saved. Christians must never affirm a sinful lifestyle — and certainly not an identity based on a sinful lifestyle — but they must call sinners to a radically new identity and lifestyle in Jesus Christ.

Prompted by pressure

Dr. Richard Land contends Baylor's about-face on the grant is only to minimize PR damage.

More details ...

This background sets the stage to answer the important question: what caused Baylor to change its mind? How did Baylor go from broadcasting its new grant to giving the money back nine days later? Both Livingstone’s letter and the timing of the reversal suggest that public pressure was the reason.

In her letter, Livingstone acknowledged “that this situation has caused concern and confusion for many within the Baylor Family and among our broader community of churches, partner organizations, and supporters,” who naturally expressed concern that an ostensibly Christian university would work to undermine Christian teaching among Christian churches. The closest Livingstone’s letter came to an apology was when she admitted that the fiasco “has been a learning opportunity.”

However, Livingstone did not specify the lesson Baylor administrators learned. Did they learn to avoid promoting LGBT activism in the church because it would flout their faithful Christian supporters? Or did they learn not to publish a press release the next time they win a pro-LGBT grant?

The timing of the reversal also suggests it was prompted by pressure. Baylor University announced the grant on Monday, June 30. The news slowly filtered around social media until The Christian Post reported on it in a piece published at the beginning of Independence Day weekend. On Monday, July 7, The Washington Stand added its own commentary.

This author reached out to Baylor University for contact, but he received an automatic email reply, stating that Baylor’s press contact, Nikki Wilmoth, was out of the office and would return on Wednesday, July 9. When Wilmoth returned, she doubtless encountered an unexpected avalanche of unwelcome press inquiries. Baylor’s School of Social Work, provost, and president all agreed to return the money the very same day.

A house divided

Christians should hope that Baylor University administrators find the courage to take a stand upon God’s truth as the only certain basis of academic inquiry. Unfortunately, none of the facts in his possession give much reason to believe that the reversal in question was motivated by such a change of heart.

The most likely explanation is financial: for a university with an annual operating budget of around a billion dollars, a single grant of $643,000 is too small a prize to hazard a potential firestorm of criticism and the potential loss of major university donors.

At the same time, Baylor also benefits from major progressive donors whose influence deters the university from taking strong biblical stands. In an August 30, 2007, eulogy, Baylor wrote that the late Eula Mae and John Baugh “were ardent supporters of Baylor” who “left an indelible impression on the University.” According to the eulogy, the Baughs contributed to at least 20 programs at the university, took active volunteer and leadership roles, and received at least five university awards over their lifetimes. This same couple also endowed the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, which funds progressive, LGBT-affirming projects in Baptist churches, including the controversial grant in question.

Meanwhile, even Baylor’s modest stand for a biblical view of human sexuality faces opposition from within its own community. Shortly before administrators returned the LGBT grant, Professor Greg Garrett, a member of the English faculty publicly defended the grant. “When the far right media comes for me, my colleagues, or @Baylor? I can only say: I serve the Jesus who said, ‘If you’ve loved the least of these, you’ve loved me.’ Grateful for this grant that will help us love better,” he tweeted. Garrett has made headlines in the past for pro-LGBT comments, and he himself received a grant from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation in 2021.

Baylor University remains a house divided, which is a posture that can only result in defeat against the fierce onslaught of an anti-Christian culture. If the university wants to remain moored to biblical truth, administrators must decide to stand firmly on the word of God.

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock,” taught Jesus. “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock” (Matthew 7:24-25).


This article appeared originally here.

Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.