Category Archives: Hard-Core Quaker

CEF: I was really struck by what has been called the faculty gag rule at George Fox University. It also sounds as if there’s double-talk (or for the Orwellian-minded, Doublespeak) about it — administration officials say there is NOT a gag rule, but faculty members say there is — or at least they say that in private, not for attribution (as people would do if there really was a gag rule intact, regardless of what was “said” about it). What’s your sense? And is this kind of censorship spreading on college campuses generally, or is GFU something “special”?

ANGELL: The president of GFU, Robin Baker, who I quote in the article, says there is no “gag rule.” He says academic freedom is guaranteed for GFU professors. On some issues that are controversial in some evangelical Christian circles, e.g., climate change, it is clear to me that GFU employees are free to speak their minds. See, for example, this interesting work by George Fox Evangelical Seminary [GFES} professors: Daniel Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A. J. Swoboda, Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology, intro. by Bill McKibben (Baker Publishing Group, 2014).

It is also clear to me, however, that academic freedom at GFU does not extend to discussion of matters concerning human sexuality. And that it cannot, as long as the current lifestyle standards of the University are in place (and, as I state in my article, there are no plans to change or even to reconsider them at this point).

This is an increasing problem for GFU professors and staff; in this most unchurched of states (Oregon) where same-sex marriage is legal and increasingly mainstream, GFES and GFU professors are in danger of finding their relevance circumscribed because of an inability to candidly express their views on matters of human sexuality. This specific issue is most severe at the so-called Christian colleges, although faculty at other seminaries and universities could do much more to engage matters of human sexuality in a constructive manner, especially in print.

Read more →

Q. Hmmm. So is there a bottom line here? Is NCYM “over the hump” now?

A. Well, I’m a believer in what the great prophet Yogi Berra said: “Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
But today I’m ready to go out on a limb and say: I think it mostly is over. Or it could be.
Consider: at this point, at least six meetings have left NCYM. They include most of the most vocal pastors and others who demanded the purge. A number more may yet follow them; but each departure decreases the pressure for busting up NCYM.
If the NCYM leadership can see that this storm is well along toward clearing up, and grab the opportunity that opens up, I’m hopeful they could help change the atmosphere in the body away from, “Who do we have to get rid of to satisfy the extremists,” toward “How do we learn to follow the scriptural command to ‘bear one another’s burdens’ and act like a Christian community”?

Q. But you’re not sure about that?

A. I’m not. That’s because there’s this “Grand Plan” out there, hanging over NCYM. It’s really left over from early last summer, and was meant as one more try to please those who wanted a purge. But why the “Task Force” would still be wanting to mollify a group that has now mostly left NCYM behind is beyond me.
Yet that’s how the “Plan” reads and sounds. And if it’s pushed on the yearly meeting, NCYM could face another round of division and conflict, which would really be entirely unnecessary.

Read more →