Before I accepted a teaching position at Anderson College, I was asked whether I thought I would be able to work in a Christian environment. I answered, “yes,” because I was raised as a Christian and had been exposed to various churches in the first 25 years of my life. At that time, I knew only a little about the history of Anderson College and less about the Church of God.
As part of my orientation process, I was asked to read more about the College. I learned that it began in 1917 as the Bible Training School of the Gospel Trumpet Company, the publishing arm of the Church of God (Anderson, IN). In 1925, the Bible Training School became Anderson College, and in 1988 the College became a University. I also learned that becoming a College was controversial back in the day because many in the Church of God were concerned that too much “secular” education might weaken their faith. They believed their ministers needed only a strong background in the Bible and a calling to serve.
Eventually, thanks to the first president of the College, John Morrison, the idea that a broader educational background would better prepare young people for a life of service to the church and society gained acceptance, although the tension between faith and higher education persists to this day. It seemed to me there was always some confusion about whether the institution should identify itself as a college or part of a church. In college, especially in a university, free inquiry is paramount, while in a church, it is more important to adhere to a specific set of beliefs.
As I read the history of the Church of God, I learned it was part of the holiness movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It claimed to have “free and open” traditions and welcomed anyone from any other denomination who wanted to attend. The Church was non-credal, meaning that one was not expected to recite or sign a specific creed to be a part of it. Even so, the Church was united by shared beliefs – the sovereignty of God, salvation through Christ, and indeed, the ideal of holiness.
The early Church of God taught that neckties were for city folk, while string ties or bow ties were more proper for true believers. Church people, including college students and faculty, were once expected to avoid not only alcohol, drugs, gambling, tobacco, and extra-marital sex, but also movies, stockings, excessive jewelry, short skirts, makeup, and of course, dancing. One Church of God preacher’s kid asked me, “Mr. Murray, do you know why the Church of God is against pre-marital sex?” Before I could form a thoughtful reply, she said, “Because it might lead to dancing!” Until the 1990’s, dances had to be held off campus.
A bonus for me was that the Church stood against secret societies, secret handshakes, and secret oaths. This seems to be implied by the non-credal nature of the Church. “Let your yes be a plain yes, and your no be a plain no.” [James 5:12] Fraternities and sororities are still not allowed. There are, however, social clubs that sponsor campus events and perform community service.
For 38 years, I understood higher education meant I would be working with young people. The first president I served under spoke about their need for Christian guidance. He understood that not every student would always follow all the rules. Some will push the boundaries or defy conventions. Sometimes a student will need the wise counsel of a professor or the dean of students.
One example. For several years, the brass ensemble I directed was invited to take part in Bill and Gloria Gaither’s “Praise Gathering” in Indianapolis. One year, two members of this group were seen drinking beer at a restaurant near the Convention Center. They were both of age and had their parents’ permission, but even so, it was against university policy. They were there to represent the university and were expected to follow the student handbook while doing so. When this was brought to my attention, I had a friendly chat with the guys. So did the dean of students. Nobody “punished” them, but they were cautioned to make better choices and be better examples to the younger members of the group. In a secular university, their behavior probably wouldn’t have been an issue, but at AU certain standards were and are expected.
I used this example for many years whenever prospective students and parents asked me how we dealt with students who didn’t follow the rules. We tried to follow the path of love and respect, not accusation and humiliation. As I understood it, the idea was to lead students away from trouble, to show them better alternatives. We have all sinned, and while it’s fair enough to point out mistakes, it’s not fair to use scripture as a cudgel to beat young people into submission. I always understood I was supposed to lead by example.
I should add that the College benefitted from having students who came from strong family and church backgrounds. When I arrived, the dean of faculty mentioned that the College didn’t get many troublemakers. During my time there, I worked with hundreds of young people who were serious about making a positive contribution to the world. Such is the legacy of good parents and good mentors.
Throughout my teaching career, I tried to deal with students as they were. It didn’t matter to me if the student was black, white, or any color in between. I tried to do my best to help them, if they would accept my help. Gender didn’t matter to me, nor did the idiosyncrasies of youth. I knew students with “body art,” young women who tried various hair colors, young men who wore piercings, and students who adopted all manner of attire (there was one young lady who wore a black leather jacket with spikes on it). My job was to look past all that, to help the kids God sent me, and be the best teacher I could be.
I worked with several students who were gay or struggling with understanding who they truly were. I was able to help some of them feel welcome and accepted. I even helped one or two to transfer to another university where they might feel more at home. It was interesting that nearly all felt supported by faculty while most of the antagonism to them came from other students. It seems to me growing up is hard enough without the criticism and denigration heaped upon some kids for being “different.”
It also seems to me that if God loves me with all my quirks and faults, I ought to love others the same way. So, I believed my role was not to be an inquisitor or punisher, but one who tried to understand others, even when it was difficult or I simply didn’t feel like it. Life is too short to use it to find fault or try to control everyone. I have my hands full controlling myself sometimes.
The current Student Handbook states:
“We at AU believe that to live in a healthy community together, we must love each other and seek to understand before being understood. We desire a community in which we can disagree, but where safety and respect are a priority for all, recognizing that a Christ-like community is willing to lay aside personal preferences for the benefit of the community. When shared values and expectations are violated, students will enter into a disciplinary process rooted in love, grace, forgiveness, honesty, and the pursuit of personal and community restoration.
“We value our relationship with and responsibility to the Church of God (Anderson). This covenantal relationship informs our curriculum, mission, community standards, moral expectations, and faith perspective in pursuing knowledge. The beliefs of Anderson University are consistent with the beliefs of the Church of God.
“Our policies and practices, implemented through a posture of love, are in alignment with the biblical belief that human beings are created in the image of God. Because of this belief, we faithfully care for all students, staff, and faculty with respect, humility, courage, and discernment when addressing any issue, including those issues related to identity and sexuality. Our scriptural understanding is that God has created us as either male or female, and this belief regarding human sexuality is foundational to our understanding of creation itself.
“We believe that the Holy Spirit empowers image-bearers to live transformed lives in obedience to God’s desire for sexual purity. God created man and woman to enjoy a consensual sexual relationship together solely in the context of marriage between one man and one woman. All intimate sexual acts between individuals that occur outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage are a distortion of the holiness that God intends. We believe that “male” and “female” are immutable characteristics that are present at birth.
“We recognize that as a campus we are made up of individuals who may hold differing positions on various matters. Individuals who do not agree in all particulars with the position articulated in this statement are welcome in our community. There is a community expectation that the official position of the University be enacted through a posture of love. We understand our responsibility to uphold biblical truth in belief and practice, and to do so in a way that is a reflection of the grace we have received.
“Institutional policies and practices will be in alignment with the beliefs described in this statement. These policies include, but are not limited to, personal romantic relationships, residence life housing assignments, use of restrooms and locker rooms, competition in intramural and intercollegiate athletics, the recognition or support of campus groups and activities, academic responsibility with respect to curriculum, and advocacy in one’s capacity as an employee of Anderson University. It is expected that all employees of the University will engage in behaviors consistent with the understanding of human sexuality in this statement.”
I have a few reactions to these well-intentioned statements.
When I arrived, most Anderson College students came from the Church of God. Now, only about one in ten students come from that background. Also, the amount of funding from the Church has dwindled over the years as well. While the relationship is still important, I question whether the University should continue to identify as an arm of the Church. Many formerly church-affiliated Universities have ended their ties. Again, a university is not a church. While a university can and should uphold moral values and standards, a church must do these things in accordance with its beliefs. A university can offer religious studies and moral philosophy courses as part of its engagement with the “universe” of ideas. A church is compelled to engage with its faith traditions, history, and sacred texts.
That said, I’m not opposed to community and moral standards, but I question the dominance of a Church that does not support the College the way it did 100, or even 50, years ago. Sometimes what the scriptures seem to say is open to interpretation, and anyone can maximize the passages that support their beliefs while minimizing any passages that do not. It’s simply not clear to me that the Bible defines male and female based on physical characteristics alone. It’s also unclear that only male and female categories were created in the image of God. If this is true, then God’s image would not be male or female, but in some way the highest form of both. No wonder God is often described as “fire.”
We now have a religion based on certain assumptions about God and the traditions these have spawned, set up by men to support a hierarchy that best serves their needs. One example: men cite certain passages (wives obey your husbands) when they want to minimize the role of women, conveniently overlooking the passages that underscore the vital role women played in the early church. It’s not difficult to get the impression that, according to some, certain sex organs grant more power and influence than others.
I’m also troubled by the notion that “male” and “female” are “immutable characteristics that are present at birth.” Does this refer to physical attributes alone, or are mental, emotional, and spiritual characteristics to be considered as well? Not all men like sports, guns, and cars. Not all women like art, opera, and dolls. I like art, literature, and music in addition to carpentry, cars, and cameras. I am indifferent to sports and hope never to use a gun. I also appreciate fine fabrics and well-made shoes. I’m not a Teddy Roosevelt wannabe. It seems to me we lack understanding when we classify males as “manly” and females as “womanly.” I’ve known “masculine” women and “feminine” men. There seems to be a continuum of preferences and I’m confident God made each of us the way we are.
There are women who are spiritually astute. It seems to me the gifts of wisdom and discernment are not just for men. Yet, for thousands of years, history has been written mostly by men. No wonder it’s “a man’s world.” If life is all about physical strength, aggression, and conquest, I suppose we men have a point. But is that all there is?
Perhaps God is the unification of the eternal masculine and feminine. We tend to separate these attributes. Some, such as compassion, are supposedly feminine, while others, such as protection, are thought to be masculine. According to tradition, men must fight for the homeland, while their women must be the homemakers. But sometimes men do a great job caring for their children while their wives are great breadwinners. So, these roles are not necessarily connected to sex. Could God be the best of both sexes?
We humans like to label things. It’s not clear to me whether scriptural labels represent the norms of their time or must be followed for all time. It’s also not clear to me that we live in an “either/or” world. I’ve met too many exceptions to conclude that our labels are always right, much less absolute, no matter what century they come from.
Yes, the scriptures say these things. The Bible says a lot of things. Are we going to insist on following all the restrictions and punishments of Leviticus, or just those with sexual implications? What makes us think that sexual misconduct is worse than other forms of misconduct? To be sure, we should not condone sexual intimacy outside of a consensual, committed relationship, such as marriage. Yet, on the list of “things that humans do to harm one another,” inappropriate sexual contact is just one thing among many. Slander, gossip, betrayal, boasting, envy, jealousy, greed, anger, treason, lying, cheating, stealing, preferential treatment, and exploiting others for personal gain start a long list of things that can cause a great deal of harm. Not that these are worse or better than loving a person with the wrong sex organs. There is a potential of harm in all of our choices and actions.
One final point. I’m not sure whether faculty, staff, and students must sign a form showing their agreement (intent to comply) with these statements or simply their acknowledgement that church/university standards exist. If it is the former, it would be a significant departure from, “would you be able to work in a Christian environment?” Signing a church-approved statement of community standards and moral expectations might amount to a creed or an oath, depending on how it is worded. I’m not sure I could sign such a document. Christians of good conscience often see things differently.
I tried to foster good decisions and good behavior in the students I interacted with. I didn’t concern myself with judging students based on their presumed sexual behavior or even their confessed preferences. I tried to focus on finding ways they could improve themselves and become the best people they could be. I tried…
