Christian Colleges have historically been the “seed-bed” for cultural challenges. Unfortunately, they have also been notorious for drifting from their original mission. The following is a kind and gentle attempt to draw an influential Christian school back to the front-lines of cultural engagement.
Greetings Dr. Wright:
I am not a fan of “open letters”. My reasons are numerous, but on this occasion I find myself unable to chart another course of discussion concerning your recent testimony to the Indiana Senate Committee on SB100/344. Your remarks have been public and influential both at the committee hearing as well as the forum that we both participated in hosted by the Indy Star several weeks ago. Due to the public nature and what I believe to be the leavening effect of your influence, I am seeing no other way to help the broader Body of Christ (The Church) sift through the various opinions it’s leaders advocate. Let me be clear at this point. I am not questioning your Christian Faith or your genuine sincerity to espouse what you understand to be Biblical. I have found you to be a thoughtful and good-spirited Christian leader. I am not “judging” you, however I am weighing and judging your thoughts and ideas with regards to public policy and Religious Liberty. This issue (SOGI) is quickly becoming a national quagmire and transcends your university and my local church.
I have read the transcript carefully as well as your clarifying or additional remarks to your denominational and university community. I have tried to follow your responses on social media to both comments and criticism. I have noted your defenders, especially David Drury, Chief of Staff of the Wesleyan Church, of whom I can only assume speaks with some sense authority of the denominational position in general. I have noted several statements of which I would readily and completely agree, especially your quote that “sexuality is no human construct”. However, I cannot help but address the crucial gaps in your reasoning with regards to our Biblical Faith and the IWU mission statement. As the Field Director of the Indiana Pastors Alliance, I have already underscored our five reasons to challenge this SOGI legislation. If you are interested those concerns are well known and easily accessed online. However, your remarks have addressed three specific areas that need to be highlighted for the church at large and responded to.
1. Institutional Religious Liberty v. Individual Religious Liberty
It is clear from your remarks that your intent is to defend the mission and work of IWU. Who could fault you for that? You are the president and your “job” and I suspect your heart is to protect that which means so much to you. I get it. The problem is that your well-intentioned position is violating the very thing your university website claims to uphold which is a “comprehensive” Christianity which produces “world changers”. You cannot carve-out special liberties for organizations while neglecting the very people you are training to make a difference. IWU may indeed get to execute its vision despite SOGI legislation being passed, but I can assure you that your graduates who take their faith into the market-place will not enjoy that same freedom. You may have insulated the university from lawsuits, but you jeopardized the freedom from that same litigation with your graduates. I too, as a pastor, would enjoy a “carve-out” in SB344; however, I must be a voice for my church members and other Christians who actually believe what I preach when I tell them Jesus is Lord of all and encourage them to take their faith into that business. So, I reject the “carve-out” because I stand with them, not the perpetuation of my ministry or church organization. Dr. Wright, you too must stand with your students, graduates, and alumni to maintain an integrity of mission as a Christian university; or, teach a reduced Gospel which accurately reflects your views of where the faith can and cannot be exercised.
2. Elusive Faith v. Engaging Faith
I read your testimony and I freely admit you said things of which I have no issue. The problem isn’t so much what you said, but what you omitted. Yes, you underscored a need for religious liberty, most specifically towards organizations. You never officially endorsed SB344, but then again, you never challenged it either and it is there a subtle problem arises. What does it really mean to “engage” the culture. The Chief of Staff of the Wesleyan Church, David Drury, gave you a glowing affirmation as a leader in the comment section of your blog site. He referenced your “leading in the public square” and even suggested that those who challenged your viewpoint were “spreading cowardice”. I know he did not mean that as a moment of humor but I had to chuckle. Does he really think Ms. Stutzman and Klein are cowards? Does he really think the pastors who are trying to be a voice for their people in the marketplace are “spreading cowardice”? I realize that these remarks are from a defender and not yours, but I marvel that people would even think that being elusive and ambiguous with the application of core beliefs equates into courage. I hesitate to exhort a learned man and spiritual leader as yourself, but this is not the Daniel model. We are living in an age of spiritual ambiguity, relativism, and biblical illiteracy. If there were ever a time for Christian leaders to be direct and crystal clear, it is now. Your testimony was politically astute. You could affirm the Christian community’s desire for religious liberty while tacitly approving a convoluted attempt at legislating “equality”. You did not “engage” the culture with truth, you navigated around it. Yes, had you been more direct I am sure the LGBT community would have come after you. Now, they will come after people like the Stutzman’s and Klein’s, of which many are getting business degrees at IWU.
3. Fatalism v. Faithful
Your remarks in both your testimony and clarification rang with a sense of fatalism. You referenced the changing culture and how these new SOGI laws are a foregone conclusion. Your statements inferred that the response from Christian people and organizations should basically be “hold the fort and protect what we can” (my paraphrase) to the new reality. Perhaps you are right. This may indeed become the new reality. The problem is that it will indeed become that reality if we as Christians do not remain faithful to our call to be “salt and light”. Paul was clear (Colossians 1:16-20) that Christ’s Lordship has no boundaries and that includes “earthly and heavenly, visible and invisible, thrones and dominions, powers and principalities”. The Church is to be the faithful witness in every arena of life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Politicians cannot dictate the geography of our faith journey. They cannot seal us off on college campuses or in our churches. We should advocate for our religious freedom on every square inch of this globe. As I have often said, there is no such thing as neutral (actually Jesus said it). Every civilization will eventually embrace a worldview. Some ideology or philosophy will ultimately prevail in a culture. I am not prepared to retreat the truth of the Gospel out of any private business or public arena. Your decision to protect your university was probably a good pragmatic decision as we feel the winds of adversity, but it was not a principled decision based on the faithful application of Scripture.
As I conclude, my exhortation would simply be that you look into the eyes of the students you are training in comprehensive Christianity with a stated mission to equip them as “world changers” and ask yourself if you really demonstrated the courage they are going to need in the next 40 years. I still believe you have an open door in your remarks to clearly state that SB344 is a terrible idea for Hoosiers. My hope is that you will consider it.
Respectfully,
Kevin R. Baird, D.Min.
Field Director
Indiana Pastors Alliance
Crown Point, Indiana
No Comments