Last October, news broke that Shorter University, a Christian college in Rome, Georgia, had decided to ask its employees to sign a controversial pledge that affirms that they are not engaging in homosexuality, among other forbidden activities. Now, after scores of employees refused to sign the document, the college, which is affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Convention, has reportedly received a massive number of resignations.
Rather than renewing their contracts with the private school, around 50 staffers (the NY Daily News reports that the number is closer to 60) refused to sign the “Personal Lifestyle Statement,” and simply decided to throw in the towel. The Christian Post has more:
Dr. J. Robert White, executive director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, which Shorter is a part of, told The Christian Post that the “lifestyle statement” is consistent with the convention’s position.
“We have not taken a specific position related to the ‘lifestyle statement,’” said White, “but the history of our convention, which goes back to 1822, has approved many resolutions regarding homosexuality as a sin and alcohol use as ill-advised.”
Despite the outcry from some faculty and staff regarding the statement, White did not believe the measure would be overturned.
“I do not believe there will be any changes in the ‘lifestyle statement’ due to people who are opposed to it,” said White. “I think that at any educational institution the faculty and the administration are responsible for following the guidelines set by the board of trustees who provide this whole governance for the university.”
Plainly stated: the opposition to the regulatory mechanism isn’t likely to lead Shorter University to reverse course. Aside from forbidding an active role in a gay relationship, the lifestyle pledge also bans pre-marital sex, adultery and drug use and abuse. Additionally, employees are asked to be active members of a church and to live their lives as committed, Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ. MORE HERE
ALSO Christian university asks staff to sign form stating they’re not gay
QUESTION: Does anyone else have a very real problem with the idea of signing a “behavior pledge?”
Honestly, I went ballistic when I first read this, and I wasn’t really sure why! Was it the infringement into my privacy? Or was it just my rebellious Christianity kicking in? Sadly, I posted my views on another believer’s post, and she accused me of not being a “real Christian,” a pathetic cop out, in my opinion. While at first thought, I rebuffed the notion of contracting to allow the school into my bedroom, I certainly understand the belief that practicing homosexuals ought not be in positions of authority within a Christian institution. See, I’m of the opinion that we’re ALL sinners saved by grace, and that God’s priorities are not always the same as ours in regards to behavior changes. I guess it just seems to me, this one guy in the lead story had been in the library for 15 yrs. He happens to be gay. Now, it is my thought that a leader worth his/her salt is going to know the professors and those in positions of authority, and if there is any compromise in any of them, it is dealt with privately. I mean … feel me?
blogsense-by-barb 
“QUESTION: Does anyone else have a very real problem with the idea of signing a “behavior pledge?””
Yes. It is Big Brother under the guise of maintaining Christian values.
EXACTLY!
This one goes in the “I don’t know what I think file”.
On the one hand it’s a private institution and should be able to apply any criteria it chooses to its employee, plus it’s a good idea to teach (and live) morality in front of the younger generation.
On the other hand, It’s none of their damned business what I do in my bedroom. Proseletyzing (sp?) would be another whole thing.
Agreed–teaching Christian values is one thing. But having people put their name to a document that is inappropriate and intrusive is another issue.
I am unsure what I feel about asking them to sign a pledge, but I do believe that if they are not willing to practice the very tenets that they preach and represent the validity of the Bible, they should not be representing themselves as teachers. Perhaps this was the schools way of flushing out the unbelievers and reaffirming the fact that they do teach Christian values. Jesus does indeed love the sinner, but when you continue the sin you are saying that it is not really a matter of importance to you and it really is a slap in the face of the One that sacrificed Himself for you, as well as the Father who gave Him. God bless!
“I am unsure what I feel about asking them to sign a pledge, but I do believe that if they are not willing to practice the very tenets that they preach and represent the validity of the Bible, they should not be representing themselves as teachers.”
That’s not the point. Just because someone is unwilling to sign something that is inappropriate does not mean that person is ever planning to engage in those activities. I’m sure most of those teachers are not homosexual nor do they ever plan to be–yet they feel that an employer asking making them sign a document about sex, whatever the context, is WRONG. The same goes with politics–it’s inappropriate for an employer to have their employees sign a document on voting and politics because it is private and personal (that is why you have a covered voting booth). Any true American wants to preserve this right and will not submit to signing a Big Brother document where an authority is trying to act as a nanny/parent for issues the individual can very well handle themselves. Cudos to those teachers who put their careers on the line for what is right. For saying that they are not children, nor slaves, but free adult Americans; they are not wards of the State or Employer or any other authority but God.
You should not be “unsure.” Big Brother is Big Brother. If you are so easily fooled into submitting to Big Brother depending on the situation, then you are no better than any other person who submits.
Thank you so much for confirming my gut response! I had a hard time getting to the root of the issue here, but yes, invasion of privacy! If this school gets away with requiring a pledge, what’s to stop any corp or the military or the GOVERNMENT FROM REQUIRING A PLEDGE OF SOME SORT? So THANKS! 🙂
You’re welcome. People need to beware of taking the bait. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I agree that asking them to sign a pledge that they are not “gay”, is wrong, however if they asking them to sign a guarantee that they will abide by the tenets of the school, and live that as well, I think that it is a different thing altogether. Asking someone who is responsible for teaching and representing the institution seems quite in line with following the tenets of Christ. It is no different than a hospital requiring their members to abstain from the illegal sale of drugs.
I can’t speak for other states, but when I was nursing in the state of Arkansas, just attending a party where some of the attendees used illegal drugs, could cause you to lose your license. When you obtained your license, you signed a statement that you would not partake in, or condone that kind of behavior.
Perhaps another way to view it would be to look at the military, should the military retain individuals who speak against the country they represent? Either by their lifestyle or their words? Should the military require those entering service to her, to take an oath that they will uphold the Constitution of the country?
These people should not have been hired to start with if they were in disagreement of the principles that the school was teaching. Did they lie to get employed? And if they do believe in the tenets the school teaches, is the problem really the signing of a pledge, or the requirement that they live what they preach? Do we know if these people were asked to follow the tenets first, or if they were asked to sign the document without any fair warning?
The difference I see in your analogy to voting is this: these people have made a choice to live in a certain way, if they are public in their support of homosexuality, they are also public in their disagreement with the Christian values in which they were hired to teach.
In voting, you are making a choice for an individual that represents your values, no one has to know who that choice was, or even what your values are unless you choose to make them public.
“…it is no different than a hospital requiring their members to abstain from the illegal sale of drugs.”
An employer asking you to sign something regarding not taking an illegal substance (lest you get your employer in trouble as well) is very different from asking you about your personal life. Is it appropriate for your employer to also ask you about engaging in fornication as well? What about promiscuity? Where do you draw the line of decency? Privacy?
It’s the principle of the matter. Anyone can simply sign that document and lie–that is not the point. The point is that that kind of question should not be asked in the first place. What if this document got into the wrong hands and you are classified as a “homophobe” because you put your name to this document? Scary thought, isn’t it?
If you are teaching at a Christian school, teaching Christian tenets, yes, knowing in advance that you are going to be engaging in adultery or any other principle, lying, cheating, stealing, are all against those tenets and as such the people that pay your salary have a need to know these things.
As far as the document getting into the “wrong hands” and a person being classified as a “homophobe”, is a straw man and it is pretty irrelevant. Either you believe in what the Bible teaches and are willing to stand for it, or you don’t. If you do, how does it make a difference who knows it? If this is what the school teaches and you stand with them, unless you are lying to everyone, supposedly you stand by what the school teaches. If not you are dishonest to yourself as well as to everyone else. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong and someone wants to label you because of it, should you abandon your own principles and beliefs in order to fit with what the world thinks? If you do, you are saying that what the Bible teaches is wrong and that the world is right. You can’t have it both ways, either one is right and the other is wrong, there is no grey here. It can not be a little of this and a little of that. If you are not willing to stand for your principles, then they are not your principles.
I never said that there was a grey area when it comes to homosexuality and Christian tenets. What I am saying is that there is also NO grey area when it comes to an employer invading your privacy and asking questions covering inappropriate subject matter. Whether you engage in homosexual activity or not, would you feel comfortable sitting in front of your employer while he asks you these very personal questions? It not, then why do you accept such a thing just because it is not face-to-face but in writing? Let’s also go to the drug issue on the other hand. Would that be ok to discuss? I have a feeling that most people would say “yes” regardless of their true activities. So, yes, there are clear differences between the two scenarios.
Thanks, Loopy-girl for your addition to this discussion! It’s a tough issue, but it’s been a good discussion! God bless you!
Agreed! I’m struggling to get to the root of my feelings about this, but it seems like really lousy management skills to me, at least. AS I understand Biblical correction, if this Univ. President took the time to KNOW his staff, he would KNOW if Sally Sinner is sleeping around or if Bobby Bottle was abusing alcohol. Then he can confront them in love – privately – and allow the staff member the choice of help or termination – but it’s a private affair. It just seems like an invasion of my privacy to require a pledge. If a Univ can get away with it, what’s stopping a corp from requiring it … or the military … or the GOVERNMENT??? Ugh!
Agreed. A pledge is a lazy and ineffective way to evaluate employees. The best approach would be talking the time and effort to get to get to know who you are hiring.
Yes, precisely. I do find it interesting – the debate. This is the identical debate that went on fb … In a way, it’s frustrating! It brings the B.F. quote to mind (Those who would sacrifice freedom to gain security deserve neither!)
Well it is very new testament warning us not to associate people living a continuous sinful lifestyle. True we are all sinners saved by grace but Jesus said go and sin no more, not that it was okay to continue to live in sin.l
Agreed, but he never asked us to sign a pledge! Lol I don’t like making promises I may not be able to keep! I? Honestly not sure what gets my goat about this … hopefully I’ll figure it out!
Pingback: blogsense-by-barb | Grumpy Opinions
^^^^Typo–I spelled “kudos” wrong.
Here is what it says in Romans 1
Romans 1:26-32
King James Version (KJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I don’t think anyone is debating the nature of sin or the validity of living a life pleasing to the Lord. Teaching Christian values is one thing. But having people put their name to a document that is inappropriate and intrusive is another issue, not to mention offensive!
Well if you think of the alternative, you can easily have homosexual pedophiles in your school> Obama’s school czar admitted that he had a teen boy come to him and report having sex with a male teacher and the admitted homosexual school czar thought so little of it that he did not even consider reporting it. Having been victimized by a homosexual priest, I can say that I am on record for these loyalty statements. I would have no problem signing such a document myself.
John
And if you worked within a hospital system and were required to notate how many partners you’ve had in the last 10 yrs, how often you have sex, do you partake of alcoholic beverages, do you smoke … etc, and that document was public record, you’d have no problem with that?
It’s no one’s business … NO ONEs! If I am not TRUSTWORTHY, I do not deserve to be TEACHING at all!
Nor do I think a homosexual pedophile would have a problem signing it either as he would be severely lacking a moral compass. Which would defeat the purpose of having such a pledge in the first place.
Exactly! If obvious behavior (fruit) isn’t clearly stated in the classroom and the interaction staff members have with one another, then no “pledge” will define an individual’s lifestyle!
Another thing that is worthy to note is that the university is an accredited college recognized by the United States Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation; two government agencies. Not all private universities choose accreditation because many want more freedom in what they teach without being under the watchful eye of government agencies and their “guidelines.”
Worthy note! I’m really fascinated by the split in the comments. I’m discomforted by the number who would condone such a “pledge.”
Thanks for a great discussion!
Thanks for creating a discussion. 🙂
Hey John, just wanted to thank you for your part in this discussion! I appreciate your thoughtful input!
I just wanted to sneak back in here, I’ve been reading along and had nothing constructive to contribute but, I do want to say that everyone has conducted themselves so well advancing their viewpoint, sanely, thoughtfully, and intelligently. Personally, I’m highly complimented to read such worthy thinking. 🙂
Aw bless your heart, Dave! I’ve enjoyed the discussion, too! The question is rather a conundrum, but that’s OK!
It is. That is why it makes a good discussion, it makes us all think. I still haven’t really decided.