Gay Student Loses Baylor Scholarship

I don't know what kind of college this is, but assuming their purpose is to not only educate, but train and send out God fearing Christian men and women into the world with a passion for the Gospel, then yes, they did the right thing.

It is one thing to say "I'm gay, I know it's a sin, and I struggle with it. Can you please help me?" It's quite another to sneak your gay rights agenda into a conservative Christian institution and expect everyone else to tolerate you in a spirit of love and political correctness while you slowly corrupt and destroy everything we as Christians stand for.

 

Can you quote scripture on that? I believe that sin is sin in God's eyes. Even after accepting Christ we will continue to sin. The problem comes if we sin and don't repent. That creates a gulf between us and God.

 

Baylor's Truett Seminary did the right thing by removing his scholarship. When Matt Bass admitted to his homosexuality, Baylor had no choice but to remove his scholarship. Baylor wants to give scholarships to ministerial students who exhibit biblical qualifications for ministry. Continuing a scholarship for Matt Bass would be throwing away money that could be used for another student.

Had Mr. Bass kept quiet about his sexual preference he might have squeaked by without notice. I'm glad he spoke up.

 

If "being" homosexual is a sin against God, then "being" a heterosexual who is not married is a sin against God.

On the other hand, carrying out homosexual behavior is as much a sin against God as carrying out heterosexual behavior is if one is unmarried while doing so. Likewise, lust in the heart.

Of course, neither is the same as the mere propensity toward being attracted to someone.

 

If he supports gay marriage, that should be enough to have him lose a scholarship that could put him in a situation where he could be in charge of a church.

This article demonstrates one of the problems of the seminary system. It's not bad to study theology in an academic environment. It is bad to have a system whereby graduating a seminary is seen as a requirement to be a church overseer, and in Biblically unqualified men can be church overseers if they have seminary degrees.

 

Where's the article about this? What went on that we don't know about?
This guy from what is said here endorses sin at a minimum. He can do that in a metropolitan church and go to a metropolitan college if they have one.
Why would baylor want to pay for his education if he did not meet thier qualifications for a ministerial degree (a man of good reputation, above reproach).
How much counseling was offered to this young man?
Was he offered an opportunity to repent and change his ways? Was it confirmed he is a practiceing homosexual?He certainly seemed to endorse the lifestyle of the homosexual?How could he possibly not understand that marriage is what happens between a man and a woman? Where in the Bible is homosexual behavior endorsed or tolerated? Where in the Bible is one mention made of a homosexual marriage to be blessed by God? How could this young man teach or preach since he openly endorses a sinful lifestyle?

 

Johnv, since you think that the definition of homosexuality (or what you call “being gay”) is comprised of something other than the sexual act, then please propound to us what “being gay” means.
Baylor has been liberal for years. This school is simply reaping what they have sown. If they are now claiming that they are lead by Scripture, then they have some more house cleaning to do.

 

Chief,

Would you mind sharing with us when you experienced this liberalism at Baylor fist hand?

If you have time, perhaps you could also let us know when Baylor policies were something other than they are now concerning homosexuality or heterosexual pre-marital sex.

 

That makes no sense. He can still attend there and be put in a situation where he could be put in charge of a church. He wasn't kicked out of classes, he lost his scholarship. The problem is that I doubt they're going to pull scholarships of heterosexual students who may personally be in favor of gay marriage (generally, they fall into the "don't ask, don't tell" policy). Looks like a double standard to me, because he's being allowed to continue his education there (just without a scholarship).

Is it appropriate for a school to pull a scholarship (which is earned by work of the students, or by need of the students) based upon a student's personal opinions, even if the student's work shows application of what he has learned at the school?

 

A propensity to have sexual feelings towards a person of the same gender as yourself. If one has these feelings, but does not act upon them, that person is gay, but not practicing homosexual behavior. This student was not being accused of any sexual behavior whatsoever.

What I'm curious about is if the faculty pulls scholarships of heterosexual students who are not virgins. Doubtful.

 

This situation saddens me, but I understand why the officials did what they did.

Whether a homosexual propensity exists or a full-blown homosexual sexual lifestyle exists, God does not except homosexuality or its constraints and provocations. We should promote the same attitude.

A minister of the Gospel MUST carry himself in a way that makes him acceptable in the eyes of the unbelieving ("outsiders") (1 Timothy 3:7). If he keeps his homosexual tendencies to himself instead of publicly proclaiming his "homosexual, but abstinent" lifestyle, he obviously knows others may not accept this position as biblically sound.

In its effort to protect its integrity and the integrity of scriptural understanding through the Holy Spirit, I can understand the school's actions.

I can also understand such a withdrawal of scholarship money due to adultery, (homo or heterosexual) fornication, drunkeness, and all those other well-known sins taht do not a represent the proper character for a minister.

J5Grand

 

I agree. But according to some former Baylor students, the school generally looked the other way in these cases (not unlike many of our own churches which vehemently seek to combat homosexuality, but do comparitively less to combat teen sex, even though teen sex is a much more frequent occurrence). If Baylor were more consistent, I wouldn't have a problem with the retraction of the scholarship. But they're being selective, which I find hypocritical.