In Nashville, a hot topic is the previous women’s soccer coach of Belmont University. It recently came out that she was a lesbian, and the couple was expecting a child. The university and the coach both came to a mutual agreement that she should step down from her coaching position. This decision has been met with waves of opposition and protests. Students are demanding their coach back. Many people are crying out against the removal of the coach, not wanting her to be "judged" because of her sexual orientation. Even a member of the school board heavily criticized the school, saying the school should "act like Christians." He also said, "Belmont has to decide whether they want to be a national recognized university -- particularly with their school of music business -- or they want to be a church." Opposition is coming from everywhere. Students, gays and lesbians, a man on the school board, and the news are all speaking out against the school's decision. I am not writing to simply report this, or even air my own opinions, but to find out what the right decision was for Belmont.
In dozens of places, the Bible says to stay away from perversion, shun sexually impure people, and expel the immoral brother. God explained that we need to stay away from people like this not because we are better holier than them, but so that their evil lifestyles don't impair our walk with Jesus. There's a reason why we shouldn't listen to atheists on philosophical matters: if we listen to their reasoning long enough, we begin to question our own reasoning. In the same way, we should avoid, even run away, from people who live such lewd lifestyles as gays or lesbians. When I was in middle school, I hung out with many perverted guy friends who enjoyed lusting, cursing, drugs, and overall badness. The more I spent time with them, the more I did the things they did. When a good child is mixed in with many bad children, the bad children don't change. Who changes? The one good kid changes almost every single time.
Imagine this headline: A Christian private school has a lesbian coach. While it seems that it would be tolerant of Christians to do this, I think it'd be a sin to let this happen. If a school really is a Christian school, it ought to be run in a Christian way, with Christian leaders, with Christian principles and morals and standards. Just as a church wouldn't hire a gay pastor, worship leader, Sunday School teacher, so a Christian school should not hire a gay coach. The goal of a Christian school should be to provide opportunities for students to learn and grow in the ways of Jesus. That means the leaders of the school should be prepared for this and ready to shine the light of God to the students of the school. Someone may counter by saying, "Just because it's a Christian school doesn't mean everyone's a Christian." I agree. But shouldn't the leaders? The people with power, control, influence? It isn't right for a school with a specific goal to hire a person who's personal goals and lifestyle directly conflict the goals of the school. The school might as well hire a painter to teach a class on mathematics. The school would be hiring a teacher who's personal goals and lifestyle conflict with the purpose of the class. That's crazy! It makes no sense at all. So why would a Christian university hire or retain a lesbian coach? That too would be crazy.
2 comments:
Even though I am in the same area I hadn't really heard about this...I have heard about Belmont not allowing a gay and lesbian group on campus a month or two ago. I agree with your post about how they are doing what is right and sticking to what the Bible says. I think we should remember to pray for the leaders at Belmont that they would continue to make wise decisions and not be discouraged by the media coverage they are getting. =)
Two things I thought having looked briefly at this. She may indeed have been forced off campus as she says, however, was she not expecting that when she announced it? She also says that she thinks it was "time to leave her life honestly", so she obviously thought it was time for a change somewhere. So in the end, from that spot, the ending was a semi foregone conclusion.
The other thing to note is that if they had have kept her on, they would have been slammed for that decision as well. The attacks would have come from different quarters, but the attacks still would have come from all through the media.
Another perspective is the one that I remember Peter Jensen (the anglican archbishop of Sydney for the last 9 years) discussing. In an article I can't find anymore a few years ago, he said that he didn't have a problem with openly gay people in power in the church. Initially, that seems like a strange thing to say, until he follows up with something along the lines of 'as long as they aren't practising'. Which brings me to the next point. Is homosexuality inherently evil when compared to heterosexuality if it isn't acted upon. At that point, it comes across, at least to me, as more of a controlled urge and when you get there, you also get to the point of non-practising homosexuals being in a better place than heterosexual couples who have sex outside of marriage. I'm still thinking that one over and so I may come to change the way I see that, but so far in my mind at least it's holding up. The question is whether that is a standard that can be held, or indeed will be held.
Post a Comment