By Bryce Shockley, Contributing Writer
On Oct. 21, the Collegian published an editorial written by Matthew Pertz detailing remaining fears expressed by students in regards to Asbury’s exemption to Title IX. Pertz interviewed three separate students about their experiences at Asbury as students who struggle with same-sex attraction. I do not want primarily to deal with the testimonies presented of struggles I assume must be very challenging. I would like to focus on the reasoning presented by Jon Baker and Pertz on why Asbury should change its position on human sexuality. In Pertz’s article, he quotes Baker as saying “Asbury forces moral convictions instead of allowing students to interpret Scripture for themselves.” It is this kind of ethereal argumentation that should be challenged for the lack of intelligent rationale.
It is simply because Baker does not agree with Asbury’s moral standard of sexuality founded on Scripture that he claims he is not allowed to interpret the Scripture for himself.
[perfectpullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The fundamental idea not understood in Baker’s argument is that sex is not essential to be a human being. Christ did not engage in it, and yet experienced humanity to its fullness.[/perfectpullquote]
So tell me, what would be a better foundation for setting a sexual standard for the university? We could take Baker’s feelings of same-sex attraction, which does not appeal to a historic scriptural interpretation, or a sexual standard founded on thousands of years of church history, biblical hermeneutics and an appeal to higher authority from God. What would be a wiser foundation to stand upon in the face of cultural trends?
If mere sexual orientation is all that matters in justifying Baker’s behavior to the extent Asbury should change beliefs held for over a century, then where should we stop? Should students who claim to have a sexual orientation towards children be allowed to fulfill their desires without having their sins selectively persecuted?
What about students who have an orientation towards alcoholism? There is no measure to the amount of illicit behavior that could be justified if claiming an orientation towards that behavior is all that is needed.
The fundamental idea not understood in Baker’s argument is that sex is not essential to be a human being. Christ did not engage in it, and yet experienced humanity to its fullness. The view Asbury University has on human sexuality is essential to our faith. Affirming sexual immorality, as I believe Pertz and Baker want to, is a clear abandonment from Christian faith.
Real Christianity is characterized by love and truth. The closing statement Pertz made is probably his most dangerous, and it warrants particular attention. In his article, he stated the church’s duty is “complete love and acceptance for a broken humanity.” This view of the church’s duty falls apart because acceptance from God and the church must be on God’s terms. It is not unconditional affirmation but an acceptance that comes through repentance and faith.
While Asbury is not a church but a Christian institution, one of the main reasons John Wesley Hughes founded Asbury University was for the purpose of evangelism. To compromise the Gospel by accepting what God views as an abomination in order to attract people can never be effective. We cannot spread the Gospel by first minimizing our view of sin, for a correct understanding of sin is essential to the grace of the gospel.
The acceptance Pertz is advocating for would, in fact, be quite unloving because it has no power to save. As our culture progresses into further immorality, Christian institutions like Asbury must stand firm on the word of God as our foundation. No matter what earthly authorities say on this issue, we will serve a different King.
