Featured World's Largest Baptist University Drops 'Homosexual Acts' From Sexual Misconduct Cod

Baylor has been on a downward slide for many years. They have put the nail in the coffin. This is what liberalism does.

 

My "first" pastor, i.e., the man who pastored the church at which I first "heard" the Gospel (April, 1966), was a Baylor grad. He's been with Jesus a long time, but, to use the common expression, I'm sure he's "turning in the grave" over this.

I'm waiting to see if Nashville's Belmont Univ. (once directly connected with the SBC) will follow suit. :tear:

 

Baylor is Baptist in name only, I wouldn't even consider them to be a Christian school. Now that they have taken the lead, other so-called liberal christian schools will more than likely follow suite.

 

More PC terrorism.

If adultery and fornication are still punishable, then homosexual acts certainly should be.

Stupid thoroughly non biblical decision. If I was a Baylor contributor, I'd cut them off.

 

I'm not a fan of Baylor, but we need to be honest in what the policy really is.

As of July 18, 2015, this is their Statement on Human Sexuality:

We need to understand that Charisma magazine's purported quotation of the revised policy conveniently omits the "Application" portion of the policy:

For those who do not know, the 1963 BF&M had a section on family added in 1998 which, among other things, states "Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is Gods unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race."

It appears to me that Baylor is simply reworking its stance on marriage to ensure that they can maintain their standards as part of their religious liberty exemption by directly tying their moral standards to their established religious practice (BF&M). It will make them less vulnerable to litigation.

 

Good post BB. Thanks.

 

Why does it appear that way to you? Did you read the entirety of the Charisma article?


Lori Fogleman Baylor spokesperson said ""These changes were made because we didn't believe the language reflected the university's caring community,"

So it is not about litigation but it is about pandering to the gay community.

 

It appears that way to me [that Baylor is simply reworking its stance on marriage to ensure that they can maintain their standards as part of their religious liberty exemption by directly tying their moral standards to their established religious practice] because of the established policies already in place.

And yes, I read the "entirety of the Charisma article," several other versions of the same article on various websites, what is apparently the original article and various items on Baylor's website.

You are quoting Charisma's incomplete recounting of her comments. As is usually the case, the situation is more complex than click-bait articles would have you believe.

Here is what she told the Waco Tribune:

“These changes were made because we didn’t believe the language reflected the university’s caring community,” Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman wrote in an email. “The university has a responsibility to articulate clearly and consistently Baylor’s commitment to its values as a Christian university.”

AND

Fogleman wrote that the decision to revise the policy was not in response to the Student Senate’s actions [a reference to a Student Senate resolution asking the University to revise their policy]. The change was part of a larger effort to review and evaluate all university policies and make amendments as deemed necessary.

“An organized effort to review and keep current the university’s policies began several years ago to make sure Baylor has the necessary policies and processes in place to comply with the many legal and ethical mandates to which the university is subject as an institution,” Fogleman said in the email, adding that the process began in 2013.

The original article also gives the rationale behind the previously referenced Student Senate resolution from a few years ago:

Baylor graduate Trenton Garza, who introduced the resolution to change the sexual misconduct policy in November 2013, said the new language makes the policy apply equally to all students instead of putting a spotlight on same-sex couples that could result in them feeling unfairly ostracized.

He noted that the previous policy also explicitly stated that sexual relationships are designed for procreation, which would be a slight to heterosexual couples who may have to contend with infertility problems.

“In this case, they are applying things universally, to where it’s equal, it’s fair, and by removing anything that would enumerate one subset of students and could be used to subject them to any sort of negative feelings at Baylor,” said Garza, who now works in political and marketing consulting.

Garza said while the revised policy still may not mark a shift in Baylor’s stance on same-sex relationships, it’s a step toward inclusiveness on campus. He said it is also positive that it has been changed into a conduct policy instead of a misconduct policy, phrasing that carried a negative connotation.

“The fact that the university took the initiative to nix and replace the wording of the previous code and to establish this new policy, I think that is a sign of acknowledgement that the previous code was egregious or was (creating) a sense of separation among its students,” he said.

Maybe, but probably not. There are legal implications involved, and Baylor has put itself in a stronger position to defend itself under the religious exemption.

We'll see how things are handled in the near future.

 

Doesn't surprise me. I think this is the beginning and major christian universities will begin to fall be the way side.

 

Thanks for putting this into perspective. Here is additional information from Baylor University.

"In all disciplinary procedures Baylor University will seek to be redemptive in the lives of the individuals involved and to witness to the high moral standards of the Christian faith."

"Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physician sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality."

 

My understanding is that Baylor is still affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas. In addition, the current Executive Director is a Baylor alum and former staff member.

Also, from the web site: "At Baylor, we celebrate our distinctive place in higher education - where research, scholarship and faith guide the mind in understanding the complex diversity of God's creation and prepare the whole person for service and leadership...Baylor continues to hold firm to the conviction that the world needs a preeminent research university that is unambiguously Christian.."

Lastly, two semesters of Bible are required of all students, as well as two semesters of chapel.

 

Baylor is clearly accommodating the homosexual community. They can teach whatever bible they want. They are now discredited in the eyes of Baptist. The BGCT should distance themselves from them.

 

I'm confused here. Aren't homosexual acts (and I'm assuming we're talking sex here) fornication?

Is Baylor no longer acknowledging that?

 

What on earth does that mean? Was this not their original stance? So why the re-work of a statement if the acts were addressed?

I'm assuming that those federal financial aid dollars could be withheld if they discriminate based on sexual orientation. They probably also figure it would affect their endowment dollars as benefactors tend to not want to contribute to universities who are offputting to a lot of their stockholders.

 

Clearly? I'm not so sure about that. Certainly quite a few news articles that cherry-picked the Waco Tribune's story for just enough material to make Baylor sound like it is gay-affirming want you to think so, but I think the facts paint a different picture.

"Now discredited?"

No. Many people - like me - don't like Baylor for much more legitimate reasons. I would list them all, but time and space does not permit it.

They don't have to do that. Baylor distanced themselves from the BGCT back in 1990 when they immorally - and probably illegally - changed their charter to wrest control of the University from the BGCT. Knowing that the BGCT would not want to take the matter to court, they won that battle because the Baylor leadership would stoop to do things that the BGCT would never do. The move has been portrayed as Baylor valiantly saving the school - allegedly the "crown jewel of Texas Baptist life" - from the evil fundamentalists (something that was never going to happen), but that's hardly what was true. Baylor leadership did not want to be accountable to a larger Baptist body.

 

Even though you are not a "fan" as you stated, I appreciate your even handed comments. I agree -- I think that all of the facts show a different picture.

 

I'm sorry my friend, I missed your previous comments:

Yes, but in a unique way. The BGCT only elects 25% of the trustees. The BGCT has more of an advisory role than any sort of power role.

Yes, David Hardage and his brothers went to Baylor (I happen to have known their family). Baylor alumni have an outsized role in the BGCT and are well organized. For years, it has been described as the "Baylor machine" (think political machine) by both its friend and foes.

I don't consider myself either a friend or foe of Baylor, but I wish they would not have such as outsized role.

It should be noted that the Baylor alumni are widely diverse and there is enormous conflict between the University and their alumni. It is a pitiful display of hubris.

 

Which is just odd.