Cedarville's Only Female Religion Prof Resigns

As the new administration of the Reverend Dr. Thomas White flexes its muscles at Cedarville University, the school's only female religion professor is the latest casualty of the Ohio college's fundamentalist takeover.

News of the separation appeared in the November 21 edition of the Cedars newspaper:

Bible professor Joy Fagan is resigning from Cedarville after two decades of service to the university. Her last day is Dec. 20. 

“The why is tricky,” she said. “Every administration has the right to take the university in a particular direction, and every faculty and staff member has the responsibility to determine if they are a good fit for that direction.” 

Fagan said she believes she is no longer a good fit for the university, particularly because of her role as a woman teaching in the Bible department 

“I also believe that when God closes doors, he opens doors,” she said.

Evidently, Prof. Fagan graciously resigned rather than forcing the godly administrators to get their hands dirty and actually go through the lengthy formal, contractual, and/or legal procedures involved in firing a tenured professor.

Two observations:

First, Fagan is not a theologian or a Bible scholar.  Her expertise is in the area of Christian education, which I have noticed is one way fundamentalist Bible academies sometimes justify the presence of a female teacher to people who complain that a college classroom is no place for a woman.  Not that it would be okay, but it might be easier to understand why the White administration would want to get rid of a woman who was teaching theology or biblical studies.  But apparently even a woman teaching Christian is unacceptably liberal and unbiblical at today's Cedarville.

Second, I am continually impressed by the Cedarville college newspaper's reporting.  The OBU student newspaper has almost completely ignored the controversial actions of the David Whitlock administration at OBU.  The Bison never spilled one drop of ink about the forced dismissals of religion faculty in 2010 and 2011.  By contrast, the Cedars newspaper has done a much better job covering the controversy at Cedarville.  I have long suspected that The Bison is censored.  And I'm certain that President White and his deputies at Cedarville will silence, or at least cripple, the Cedars very soon.

OBU administrators wisely and strategically did their firings in the late summer, when people were least likely to be paying attention.  But can you imagine what a difference it may have made if the student newspaper had done actual reporting and editorializing about the firings once school resumed in August or September?  Student awareness of the controversial takeover OBU's new administrators plotted was kept at a minimum because of The Bison's almost complete silence.  That is a fact we all have to live with.  I think the administration silenced the paper.  The White Administration will silence Cedarville's paper.  It's what these people do.

Very soon, the only woman left on the Cedarville Biblical and Theological Studies web page will the the secretary.  Which, they believe, is how it should be.  Maybe one day soon they'll fire the secretary so she can spend more time cooking, cleaning, ironing her husband's shirts, and running the carpool -- as God clearly intends.

Spring Break Reading 2013

Following last year's tradition, I probably won't post any new content during OBU's Spring Break.  But, as with last year, I do want to leave some links to recent stories you may have missed.

In January, we welcomed everyone to 2013 and explained our long break from blogging following November's Homecoming festivities.  We also laid out an agenda for the first part of 2013.

More recently, guest bloggers provided two widely-read series:

Cedarville University Series by CU Alumna Sarah Jones
Part 1 - Cedarville: A Very Brief Introduction
Part 2 - The Worst are Filled with Passionate Intensity
Part 3 - Things Fall Apart
Part 4 - The Center Cannot Hold

Feminism at OBU Series by 2002 OBU Alumna Cortney Stone
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 1
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 2

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 3
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 4

I also had fun writing a few miscellaneous posts in February.  One chronicled FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's 1938 commencement address at OBU.  In another post, I wrote of my visit to the U.S. Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, MD.  Also, in response to the brouhaha over Tim Tebow cancelling an appearance at FBC Dallas after learning of its pastor's incendiary remarks, I wrote a response that blamed the problem not on Tebow, but on certain evangelicals' extremism -- an extremism that earlier generations of evangelical leaders wisely avoided.

More relevant to our immediate purposes at Save OBU, I point you to two other important stories we covered in February.  First, see our write-up of former OBU administrator Tom Terry's address in Raley Chapel.  Second, I wrote a piece on the Winter trustee meeting.  We'll say more about the trustee meeting in weeks to come as we continue to ponder the BGCO's outsized influence at an institution where it provides an ever-shrinking share of the operating expenses.

Most importantly, please consider circulating this commentary to your friends and colleagues in evangelical higher education.  With new leadership and many of its member institutions prospering, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) is poised to exercise considerable leadership as it has for many years.  Yet, as a growing number of CCCU schools struggle against fundamentalist resurgence, the council has been silent.  Will the CCCU continue to sit idly while fundamentalists run some of its member schools into the ground?  Or can the council highlight what its successful members have done to stave off the threat of fundamentalist encroachment?  It's a vital question, and the answer remains unseen.

If you're an OBU student or staff member, we especially wish you a very restful spring break!  If you're affiliated with another college celebrating another week, our best wishes to you, too.  And if spring break is for you nothing more than a distant memory, well, I hope you remember it fondly.

Thanks to so many of you for your support.
-Jacob Lupfer

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 4

Feminism at OBU Series
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 1
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 2

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 3
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 4

On Wednesday, I wrote about FAIR's protest of an offensive chapel message and the administration's response to that protest. Today, I will conclude the story and share some final thoughts about what happened.

In spite of the letters to The Bison, the public meeting, and the administration's official response, many students were unaware or indifferent toward our cause. A few even went against us. An issue of The Bison nearly three weeks after the chapel message had a letter from male student who defended Dr. Gillham. He said that Dr. Gillham's Wednesday chapel message and much of his Friday chapel message were good and even outstanding at times. His reasoning was that Dr. Gillham was a good speaker, so it wasn't necessary to make a fuss over two misinterpreted sermon illustrations.

After that, the controversy died down a little, though it briefly popped up during a variety show, Spring Affair, in April. The theme that year was reality TV, and during a montage of reality show spoofs, there was a clip that showed a young man serving eggs to a young woman. They weren't cooked to her liking, so she jumped up out of her chair, threw the plate at him, and verbally abused him about breaking the yolks. The audience burst into laughter, but I was embarrassed and a little angry. I was the one who'd complained about the domestic abuse joke, after all, but I wasn't sure if the skit was making fun of me, FAIR, Dr. Gillham, or everyone on both sides of the controversy.  I couldn't tell if it was simple gallows humor or a barometer indicating students' lighthearted dismissal of the situation.

FAIR persisted. On April 15, FAIR sponsored a symposium for students, faculty, and the community. The symposium featured speakers from OBU and the community who addressed issues related to rape and domestic violence, including prevention, assisting someone who had been abused or raped, and understanding why victims sometimes stay with abusers. The Bison ran an article about the symposium in volume 85, number 25, on April 17, 2002.

As ugly as the whole incident had been, it was at least bringing some much-needed information to the surface and raising awareness on campus.

In May 2002, I graduated and committed my last act of protest at OBU: I sang my own version of the Alma Mater Hymn. Every OBU student knows those lyrics  -- "May thy spirit guide thy sons / Keep thy daughters true" -- but how many have thought about them? OBU's sons receive guidance, but OBU's daughters receive an admonition to be "true." Faithful. Honest. Chaste. Not guided through life by the spirit of OBU. Was that honor for men only? FAIR had once discussed these lyrics and what they seemed to imply, though we never officially requested a change. It was a tradition we didn't want to touch, but I wasn't going to follow that tradition myself. Standing on the steps of Raley Chapel in my cap and gown, I sang my own heartfelt version by changing one word: "May thy spirit guide thy sons / And thy daughters true." Professors at OBU had preached equality to us through history, literature, theology, and sociology, and although the administration fumbled with the concept, we the students believed it.

Afterward, Dr. Todd Ream, our biggest supporter in the administration, left the OBU that same year after serving the university for only two years. Eventually, the remaining members of FAIR graduated and the group ceased to exist. The gender studies task force no longer exists (if it ever existed at all), but OBU established a Diversity Committee in the fall of 2006. This committee's purpose was "to study and recommend policy related to diversity issues," including gender. Forming a committee is the standard Southern Baptist solution to any problem, but it's clear that the administration learned that gender issues were not going to go away. I can't credit FAIR for this change, but I like to think that we played a role.

Some of you may wonder why I am bringing this protest up. First, it's a part of OBU's history. It made an impact on a number of OBU faculty members and students, myself included. I consider the matter settled and it's all in the past, so I'm not seeking to make fresh accusations toward the university. However, the story belongs on this blog. It fits into Save OBU's narrative about fundamentalism, sexism, and unethical administration. Both the speaker's words and the administration's response were sexist and rooted in fundamentalist notions about female sexuality, submission, and blame. The administration fell short with its response and was disrespectful toward the members of FAIR and every other woman on campus. I don't think it actually restricted our academic freedom, but I should note that some of the professors who openly supported us were the kind who would not have survived the "purge" without tenure. Obviously, that incident alone didn't cost anyone their job, but it probably would not have been a checkmark in their favor.

Second, the incident shows that OBU had -- and probably still has -- a significant population of moderates and liberals. No matter what conservative-minded students and alumni claim, OBU is not entirely fundamentalist, patriarchal, or conservative.  To think that way is to be blind to OBU's true nature.

Third, it shows why we need to have watchdogs like Save OBU pointing out the problems for the sake of improving the university we love. I believe that students and faculty are not the only ones who should be concerned about on-campus events; alumni have a stake in the university's welfare as well. When the members of FAIR graduated, we didn't check back with OBU about its commitment to gender studies, so we couldn't ensure that things would change. The same goes for OBU's current situation and the activism of Save OBU. If we sit in silence and submission, nothing will change.

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 3

Feminism at OBU Series
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 1
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 2

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 3
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 4

On Monday, I wrote about a chapel message that contained two illustrations that were degrading to women. Today I will share the story of our protest and the administration's response.

FAIR held meeting as soon as possible to discuss the chapel message. We were all outraged at Dr. Gillham's statements and knew that we needed to do something about it. Only two of us had heard the message firsthand, so someone tried to get a recording of the chapel service. All chapel services are recorded and archived, but this one was not. Dr. Gillham didn't allow OBU to record his message because he copyrighted his material. We knew that the administration needed to respond to the situation and uphold all the nice things they put in the Green Book about not discriminating or harassing persons because of gender.

During the discussion, one of the group members said, "Imagine being a rape victim sitting in chapel and hearing that message." It was a chilling thought. We all knew the statistics about reported rapes versus unreported rapes, the challenges of reporting rape and assault, and how colleges sometimes poorly responded to sexual assault on campus. What about OBU? How many students knew about preventing sexual assault, fighting against rape culture, and supporting victims? What about students who were quietly coping with the aftermath of sexual assault and domestic abuse? What sort of chilling effect would Dr. Gillham's message have?

We outlined a course of action. First, the two members of FAIR who heard the message firsthand would write editorials to The Bison. I wrote about the egg illustration, while the other member of FAIR wrote about Lois and Joe. Second, we would hold an open meeting in the common area of the Geiger Center and speak to students and faculty about the incident and respond to Dr. Gillham's message. We wanted to be visible and make our voices of protest loud and clear, and we wanted to be orderly, well-spoken, and even-tempered. Picketing the chapel, waving handmade signs, and chanting slogans wouldn't do. After all, OBU had taught us to use rational discourse, not protest theatrics. Third, we would find ways to educate students and faculty about domestic abuse and sexual assault and what they could do to fight against it. For the survivors of domestic abuse or sexual assault, we wanted to let them know that they were not alone, and we wanted to encourage others to support them.

It seemed so easy. Who wouldn't be against domestic violence and sexual assault? There were quite a few feminist-minded students and professors who would be outraged, and OBU had plenty of Christians who claimed to have compassion for those who are hurting – a category that certainly included victims of abuse and sexual assault. At the same time, we knew it would be a challenge. We were confronting the fundamentalist patriarchy at OBU. Indifference and even opposition were likely.  

The following Monday, we held our open meeting in the common area. Anyone walking through the student center to get their mail or visit the cafeteria could overhear our speeches and see how many people had gathered to listen to us. I don't remember how many people attended, but I remember that there was a small crowd of students and faculty, both men and women. We pointed out the problems with the offensive illustrations and asked the university to issue a formal apology.

On Tuesday, members of FAIR met with Todd Ream, the Dean of Students. Dr. Ream was very supportive and sympathetic. He was troubled by the incident and willing to back us up with the administration.

On Wednesday, February 27, we attended chapel service and hoped that OBU would issue an apology as we had requested. Before Dr. Mark Brister introduced that week's chapel speaker – I have since forgotten who it was, but it was yet another middle-aged man – he took a moment to address the previous week's chapel message. I do not recall his exact words, but he stated that some people complained about statements made in last week's chapel and that OBU wanted to apologize if anyone was offended. At that point, Dr. Brister turned to look at the man behind him, who had sat through the entire apology with a bewildered look on his face. They exchanged glances, and Dr. Brister chuckled and shrugged his shoulders at him. The speaker chuckled too.

Not only was the "apology" dismissive and not much of an apology at all, it ended with two men looking at each other, laughing, and shrugging helplessly over a bunch of women getting hysterical over something said in chapel.

At first, I thought that it was good that we at least got a response and an apology, but then I realized that it was more of a dismissal. The administration had all but told us through PR-speak to sit down, be quiet, and let the men talk.

After chapel, everything unfolded in the pages of that week's issue of The Bison. An article about the controversy and our meeting in the GC appeared on the front page of volume 89, number 19, right next to an article with a headline that read, "Women's conference to feature several OBU alumni, faculty." An excellent quote from Dr. Todd Ream appeared next to the article about FAIR's meeting in the GC:

The members of FAIR are correct in asserting that gender discrimination and sexual abuse, at whatever level, are contradictory to the [sic] our identity as a Christian people. We must work together to affirm the created image of God present in all of humanity, male and female alike.

Unfortunately, statements from other male authority figures paled in comparison. In the article, Dr. Dick Rader stated that "he is sorry for any offense caused by students misconstruing Dr. Gillham's statements." Dr. Gillham told The Bison that he "acknowledge[s] FAIR's concern about male mistreatment of females and [he shares] that concern." He also said that the only thing we should take away from his lecture was Christ.

On the second page of that same issue, FAIR members' dual editorials about the chapel message appeared right across from an excellent editorial that outlined harassment policies in the Green Book and a strange editorial complaining about the sexism of an on-campus Valentine's date auction.

Letters to the editor from OBU's administration and Dr. Gillham appeared in next issue of the Bison, volume 85, number 20, on March 4, 2002.  The letter from OBU's administration was signed by Dr. Mark Brister, Dr. Joseph R. Weaver, and Dr. Dick Rader. It began by acknowledging that "a speaker presented illustrations which were deemed by many in our campus community to condone domestic violence, sexual abuse and victimization of women." However, the letter went on to say that Dr. Gillham told the university that "he did not mean to convey the message as perceived by a significant number of people." It also emphasized OBU's nondiscrimination policy and stated that "the impressions taken from the illustrations of Feb. 22 are not consistent with the position of the University's administration, faculty and staff." The choice of words really struck me: "deemed by many," "perceived," and "impressions." The administration stood with Dr. Gillham and seemed to suggest that we did not actually hear what we claimed to have heard. The letter also pointed out that the service was not recorded, indicating that it was our word against Dr. Gillham's.

The last section of the letter outlined the administration's course of action: they would "study gender related issues at OBU." Privately, they had told FAIR that they would form a gender studies task force as well as inform authority figures at Dr. Gillham's future speaking engagements about the controversy that erupted at OBU. They did not mention the latter in the letter and we never knew if they followed through.

Dr. Gillham's letter addressed FAIR directly and opened with "My Dear Sister in Christ," even though it was supposed to address the editor. He stated that he "share[d]" our concerns about "male mistreatment of females" and that "it was not [his] intent to address male/female relationships, social inequalities or sexual abuse" in his chapel message. He claimed that the illustrations were meant to show that "real life is hard" and that Christ "is God's Provision to express His life through each Believer," which "includes living with an abusive husband and how to overcome temptation." He acknowledged that "the two males were portrayed as abusive," but followed it up with an accusation: those who misconstrued the illustrations were "naively undermining the work of the Holy Spirit." Our takeaway was that he meant we should sit and learn in silence and submission instead of protesting. He ended the letter by saying, "I love you and pray for God's best for you."

Again, I couldn't help noticing his choice of words. The use of the phrase "overcome temptation" emphasized the way that he blamed Lois for what happened, and "living with an abusive husband" left no room for the woman to seek help or a divorce. In addition, if he did not want to address the issues of abuse, why did he bring them up in the sermon? Should we see those issues as inevitable facts of life rather than injustices we must fight?

As dismissive as these two letters were, there was still hope. Right below Dr. Gillham's letter was a lengthy and outstanding letter from OBU professor Dr. James Farthing, who was also a Deputy Sheriff for Pottawatomie County, about the legal definitions and issues related to assault, battery, rape, and domestic abuse. He completely backed up FAIR's assertions and lent his authority to our side. He pointed out that "those who deal with these issues on a regular basis understand that they are complicated well beyond the understanding of those who make jokes about them or otherwise treat them lightly." Dr. Farthing then went on to say that "[t]o even imply that God blames victims, even if they have acted foolishly, is to remove the responsibility from those who commit these crimes."

Amen. Blaming the victim is reprehensible, period.

Tomorrow, I will offer some concluding thoughts on our student group and the need for continued vigilance, especially in male-dominated institutions inclined toward sexist outlooks on religion, culture, and family life.

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 2

Feminism at OBU Series
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 1
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 2

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 3

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 4

Last Thursday, I shared the story of the founding of a women's issues group at OBU in 2001. Today, I will share the story of a major event in the group's brief history.

It happened on Friday, February 22, 2002, at the end of Focus Week. That week's chapel speaker, a psychologist named Dr. Bill Gillham, was speaking again at a special Friday chapel service, so I had opted to attend that service and use my Wednesday chapel time slot for catching up on some immediate class work. It was a fairly ordinary chapel service. Dr. Gillham's message had several "sermon illustrations" and miscellaneous lessons, but two in particular were offensive and had no place at OBU.

At some point in his message, Dr. Gillham began to share a lesson about how God measures one's success by whether one trusts God to work through him or her. To illustrate this point, he told a story about a housewife who cooked eggs every morning for her husband. She always struggled to make perfect eggs with unbroken yolks, and prayed for God to help her do her best as she cooked. It seems like an innocuous (although backward) illustration, right? Dr. Gillham added a very disturbing twist: the woman's husband had a violent temper. If she broke the yolks, he would fly into a rage, overturn a chair at the table, and storm out of the kitchen. Contrary to Dr. Gillham's claims, the woman wasn't praying for God's help because she wanted to be an amazing housewife. She was praying for God's help out of fear, and she was living with psychological and spiritual distress. To make things worse, Dr. Gillham, a psychologist and counselor, treated this situation as a joke. He laughed about how "fun" it was to live with that husband and he noted that the husband wasn't "saved." The wife was the one responsible for preventing her husband's violent tantrums.

I sat through the illustration with a queasy feeling in my stomach.  I couldn't believe that I was sitting in chapel hearing a supposedly compassionate speaker place the blame on victims and dismiss the behavior of a controlling spouse. Hearing casual sexist jokes and statements from my fellow students on campus was one thing. Hearing sexist jokes and statements about domestic abuse from the pulpit in chapel was another. Furthermore, there were better ways to make that point without being insensitive toward others. Why not illustrate it by talking about an athletic team hoping to win a championship or a college student trying to make good grades to keep a much-needed scholarship?

I wish it had stopped there so I could have just fumed a bit before letting it go. After all, Dr. Gillham wasn't speaking for OBU, and he wasn't the first fundamentalist speaker to say something off-key about women.

But it didn't stop there.

Dr. Gillham moved on to another lesson. This time, he turned to 1 Corinthians 10:13, which says that God will provide a way out from temptation (sometimes translated as "difficult situations," "trials," or "tests") so that we can escape. To illustrate this point, he told a story about a lovely innocent Christian girl named Lois. Lois is a sophomore in high school, and she has a crush on a handsome senior named Joe, who is unfortunately not a Christian. Joe asks Lois to a movie one night, and she happily agrees. He picks her up and drives toward the movie theater but then keeps driving past it and turns down a side street. When Lois asks why they aren't stopping at the theater, Joe says he wants to go somewhere else first. Lois trusts him. He drives her out of town and parks the car at a make-out spot. How cliché! Joe has less than honorable intentions, of course, and before a confused Lois realizes what is going to happen, Joe rapes her. Dr. Gillham did not use the word "rape," however; instead, he trailed off in mid-sentence, leaving the audience to fill in the rest in light of Lois's confusion and panic. He pointed out that Lois had several opportunities to escape the situation: a 5-second window as they passed the theater, a 3-second window as they turned onto the side street, and a 1-second window as they turned onto the road. These 9 seconds were opportunities for escape provided by God.

It gets worse. As Joe is assaulting her, Lois prays and cries out to God for help, but according to Dr. Gillham, God turns His back on her. She had 9 seconds to escape and disobeyed God, so He let her suffer the consequences. What happened was her fault.

I was disgusted. Just like the egg example, there were so many better ways to illustrate the point about God providing an escape without resorting to an illustration that damages women and dismisses a man's abhorrent and inhuman behavior. Wouldn't it be better to use an example of a college student being tempted to cheat on an exam or plagiarize an essay? Blaming an innocent victim for what someone else did to them is no way to prove this point, especially when one also portrays God as uncaring toward those who suffer and cry out for help. Hearing sexist statements and jokes from the pulpit in chapel is awful enough. Hearing someone stating from the pulpit in chapel that God abandons rape victims is even worse. What about loving others? What about showing mercy and kindness to the brokenhearted and the downtrodden?

Another member of FAIR was in the audience, and she was also disgusted and upset. She tried to speak to Dr. Gillham after chapel, and he dismissed her concerns and turned her away. We had never been so openly degraded and insulted as women at OBU, and we worried about the negative impact the message could have on our fellow students.

We were not going to sit in silence and submission.

On Wednesday in part 3 of this series, I will share the story of our protest and the administration's response.

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 1

Feminism at OBU Series
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 1
"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 2

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 3

"Thy Daughters True": Feminism at OBU - Part 4

Editor's Note: Thanks to the literally thousands of you who read guest writer Sarah Jones's recent series on Cedarville University in Ohio.  Today, we welcome OBU alumna Cortney (Pickering) Stone ('02), who is contributing a series on a feminist student organization at OBU in the early 2000s.  As ever, a debate about feminism and Christianity is raging throughout the evangelical blogosphere.  The hot-button issues include biblical perspectives on gender and the relationship of Christian feminism to the feminist movement at large.  Our series will touch on these only tangentially.  But we promise an important --- yet often missing --- perspective: The role of the college experience in forming and nurturing feminist attitudes.  Please join me in welcoming Cortney as she shares her experiences and wisdom.

Back in November, Jacob posted about the history of student protests at OBU. After reading that blog entry, I offered to share a story about a protest that occurred when we were both attending OBU. Though he did not remember the protest and my own memories are hazy in places, I will never forget much of what happened. It made a significant impact on my life and my experience at OBU.

I'm originally from a small town in southern Oklahoma and I was raised in a Southern Baptist church. I began attending OBU in the fall of 1998 as a member of one of its largest incoming freshman classes, and I graduated in May 2002. I earned a BA in Humanities and OBU transformed my heart and mind. I still carry quotes and lessons from my favorite professors in my heart even after all these years. I love OBU, and, like Jacob and the others who are a part of the Save OBU community, I am very sad to see things change for the worse at the university.

I am a feminist -- someone who pursues justice and equality. OBU -- of all places -- nurtured my feminism. There were many students and professors who were also feminists, though many openly rejected the label in spite of holding to feminist ideals. I befriended several other young women who were feminists, and we realized that OBU had plenty of issues with gender equality and almost no one was openly addressing those issues. In 2001, we decided to form a women's issues group. I don't remember exactly how it all came together, but I believe our women's history course is to blame!

With administrative permission, we established an official on-campus organization called FAIR. The name wasn't an acronym. It was just a succinct way to explain our vision: equality, justice, and ensuring that things were fair for men and women at OBU. In the process of forming the group, we discovered that we weren't the first women's issues organization on campus. There had been many others throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. None of them had lasted longer than a few years.  Feminism clearly wasn't dead at OBU. It was cyclical.

We avoided calling FAIR a "feminist" group because the label was a red flag for many at OBU. Our purpose was to address women's issues on campus: not low-hanging fruit like the casual sexism of TWIRP Week or the patriarchal lyrics of the Alma Mater Hymn, but difficult issues such as needing more female chapel speakers, more female faculty members (especially tenured professors), equal pay for faculty members, confronting on-campus discrimination, and so forth. (Click here for several Save OBU posts on gender issues at OBU.) We were also concerned with topics of interest and issues that went beyond OBU's boundaries, such as conditions for women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. We wanted to inform students about women's concerns and improve conditions for women at OBU and beyond.

Things went very well for our small group for many months. We lived out our purpose and received some support from students and faculty. No one openly opposed what we were doing or saying. 

Then, only a few months before I graduated, our group had to face its biggest challenge. I'll tell that story here next week.

Save OBU One Year Later

Last December 6, I took to the Web to raise awareness about fundamentalist encroachment at OBU.

Funny how much can happen in a year.

Thankfully, things seem mostly stable at OBU right now.  No more firings seem imminent, though you can't blame professors who still fear for their jobs.  2009-2011 saw significant deterioration in trust between administrators and other OBU constituencies.  2012 has been calmer.  If the Lord tarries, we'll make it through this calendar year without any unethical dismissals or overruled faculty committees.

As I look back on that inaugural blog post, I have to confess that some of my perceptions have changed, too.  I was so angry about how absolutely shamefully two well-loved professors were treated that I went looking for any and every reason to be upset, saying "There may be dozens of reasons to be upset about OBU's direction."  That was hyperbolic.  Really, it all boils down to two key issues:

• Academic freedom -- Are professors free to teach and students free to learn?  Do ideology and dogma threaten the pursuit of truth in the classroom?
• Ethical administration -- Are decisions about hiring, curriculum, and program direction collaborative or unilateral?  Is faculty experience, expertise, and judgment sought or ignored?

I'll add a third, only because some at OBU seem to have followed the post-Takeover SBC in gleefully holding reactionary attitudes:

• Gender -- Are women fully free to hold all administrative, religious, and faculty positions for which they are qualified?  Are female students actively encouraged to listen for and heed God's call on their lives?  Or does the institution implicitly hold out an image from a sexist era and say, "This is what a Christian woman looks like. Be like her."

There have been serious violations in all three of these areas.  Let's not kid ourselves.  When professors are installed and removed over adherence to fundamentalist dogma, academic freedom is grossly infringed upon.  Administrators are behaving unethically when they violate the Faculty Handbook and unilaterally redirect vital academic programs and regularly overrule faculty committees that unanimously recommend highly qualified, devoutly faithful candidates in order to hire less qualified yes-men.  Gender discrimination occurs when a college president refuses to even consider hiring a woman to teach certain subjects.  And suspicions arise when a well-loved and long-serving female administrator is essentially demoted to make way for the new guard.

Our message is simple:  When these things happen, administrators will be called out.  Publicly.  Every single time.  This isn't the OBU we know and love.

During the past year, we've reached thousands and thousands of people.  New friendships have formed, even across generations.  Old friendships have been rekindled.  We've connected with hundreds of moderate Baptists all over the U.S. and the world.  Friends at other post-Takeover Baptist institutions have sought our counsel and friends at schools that rejected the Takeover have offered their support.  Significantly, our sister blog at Shorter University in Rome, GA became a national news story after administrators there launched an unprecedented attack against faculty.

We'll do a more in-depth year-in-review piece closer to Dec. 31.  And we'll continue to provide innovative (though probably not daily) content, including an upcoming guest post about a student protest in the early 2000s and a Fine Arts Fiasco series on bizarre happenings in the College of Fine Arts.  We continue to see growing student awareness about the 2009-2011 issues.  Students and alumni alike are delighted to learn that OBU has a long and distinguished history of academic excellence and collaborative governance that has only recently begun to suffer.

In the year to come, we look to formalize a leadership structure, continue raising awareness, and be vigilant in our watchdog function.  If things get worse, we'll move from awareness to actual activism.

On a personal note, thank you for your kind words and encouragement.  I am certainly an unlikely leader for this effort.  But in addition to leading an effort I believe we can all be proud of, I have rediscovered my own wellspring of affection for OBU.  For me this has been an enriching personal, professional, and spiritual experience.  Though I wish things could have been otherwise at OBU in key ways during the Whitlock era, I am most grateful for the opportunity to engage with you in this effort.

As always, our prayers are with all with all who work and study on Bison Hill.

Fun with Limericks

I'm still crunching numbers on our BGCO pastor survey and making plans for Homecoming Weekend. But in the spirit of fun, I thought I'd pass along a website that offers you a chance to win a copy of Rachel Held Evans's new book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood.  We've reported on the fundamentalist obsession with "biblical womanhood" before.

But in honor of Evans's new book (which LifeWay declined to carry online or in its stores because it undermines everything these people believe about gender roles in religious and family life and renders biblical literalism ridiculous they erroneously believe it won't sell many copies) and the fact that OBU now offers a course on women in ministry, I entered a contest on the website above to try to win a copy of the book.

To enter, all you have to do is submit a limerick.  Ostensibly, it should be about Evans's book, but I came up with something slightly different. Here's my entry:

She went off to a Baptist college
To gain complimentarian knowledge
She was called to be a pastor
And went to seminary faster
Than those fundies would like to acknowledge.

Then I thought maybe some of you in the Save OBU universe might have a clever limerick you'd like to submit in the comments below.  Think of the changes at OBU over the past few years and see if you can come up with a limerick!  I'll publish some of the best ones later in the week.

Here's one I made up just to jump start your creativity:

OBU once taught students to think
If you're gay you must go to a shrink
Now the fundies' safe "knowledge"
Harms our rep as a college
Forbes warns we're beginning to stink.

Or how about this?

OBU is a place that endears
Filling lives with laughter and tears
God's sustained Bison Hill
And I pray that he will
For another six thousand years.

You get the idea...

OBU Evolving on Women in Ministry?

In the past, we've expressed some disappointment and dismay at the blatant and not-so-blatant sexism in the OBU universe.  I took a crack at the topic early on in the Save OBU era.  Veronica followed up with a post on the plight of two specifically disadvantaged classes of women at OBU: administrators and students pursuing a ministry vocation.  Veronica also did a great post on women at CCCU universities, pointing out that if you're a female administrator in Christian higher education, it's best if you're at an institution that isn't "intentionally Christ-centered," because they are significantly less likely to have female presidents  I also took a light-hearted look at a book on "biblical womanhood" by an SBC seminary president's wife.

Yet this week's Bison had two stories of interest to the subject of women in ministry.  Briefly, the first story really surprised me (page 9).  It was about a female United Methodist minister and her life of service.  I grew up in the UM Church, and had an absolutely gifted female pastor from 1988-1992, during which time I made my Confirmation.  The UMC has been ordaining women since 1956.  I was pleased that the Bison article focused on this clergywoman's ministry and took as a given the authenticity of her call.  Most SBC pastors and almost all SBC elites disparage women's calls to pastoral ministry.  W.A. Criswell, when asked about a woman who believes God called her to be a Southern Baptist pastor, said, "She is mistaken.  God never called her.  Her own personal ambition, or longing for recognition, or a thousand other things led her into that persuasion."

The second story (on page 10) describes a new course being offered on women in ministry.  Naturally, most people expected this class to be the typically restrictive "So ladies, do you want to be an organist or a children's director?  You could marry a pastor..."  But the article indicates that the class is actually much more than that.

There are two required texts, according to the Tree of Life bookstore.  One is The Feminine Mystique, which I would be amused to see on the shelves at Tree of Life.  The other is a 20-year old evangelical takedown of feminism.  Well, takedown is too strong a term.  Presumably there are other readings.  And the class no doubt includes a lot of discussion of the issues raised.

I don't know what perspective the (adjunct?) instructor is coming from, and, contrary to what some of Save OBU's critics believe, I don't really care.  The news account indicates that the course is going well.  Students at least have the option to come away affirming that God calls women to  be pastors, bishops, professors of theology, and any number of ministerial vocations that the SBC and much of Christendom has obsessively restricted women from entering.

This new ministry class is happening in the context of other issues and events that suggest that OBU is relatively more progressive on gender than most Baptist institutions.  A number of female OBU graduates are admirably serving as ordained pastors.  On OBU's Facebook page over the last year, I've seen at least a couple women preaching in the Raley Chapel pulpit.

Perhaps most significantly, President Whitlock may not be nearly as retrograde in his views on this subject as his BGCO and SBC elite friends would like.  Most of the H.R. problems regarding women originated in the provost's office, not the president's.  And, significantly, multiple sources report that Whitlock told a group of laypeople at First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City that he didn't see anything wrong with women deacons.

The context of this admission was a speaking engagement at OKC, First shortly after OBU put Herschel Hobbs's name on the religion and ministry department.  Showing his relative ignorance of Baptist politics, Whitlock asked, "Why have people been upset in the past with FBC?"  Of course, anyone who knows anything about this subject knows that FBC has for decades been relatively moderate and virulently hated by the BGCO.  It elected women deacons for at least a few years in the 1970s and early 1980s.  This prompted the Capital Baptist Association to refuse to seat FBC's messengers at its annual meeting.  FBC also had a few relatively liberal pastors since that time.  Whitlock is on record as affirming "complimentarianism," so all in the conversation were shocked that he would affirm women deacons.  He would never utter such blasphemy in the presence of, say, Rev. Dr. Anthony Jordan.

I'll be the first to admit that I've perceived OBU to be quite backwards in its attitude toward gender.  I've thought this from the first days I spent on Bison Hill until now.  But maybe things are changing.  If David Whitlock isn't a sworn fundamentalist who wants to send women back to the kitchen, he may yet be a great leader as OBU evolves on this issue.  From women deacons to the Baptist World Alliance to allowing a course for students to explore the issue of women in ministry, Whitlock is proving to be quite the moderate.

To which we say: Come on in, the water's fine!

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose

Part 4 in our series on missions - some brief follow-up thoughts on gender, the SBC, and missions. This post is more of an op-ed than the previous three have been. Taking that into consideration, I think this is an important, albeit somewhat tangential, facet of the story that may help direct us to see some specific effects on OBU.

Historically in Baptist life, the mission field has often been the place where women have gone to fulfill their gifts in ministry when they were not permitted to do so at home due in part to some strange mixture of tradition, misogyny, and imperialistic racism (e.g. man > woman; white woman > “heathen”).

For some reason, it was not (and still is not for fundamentalists) permissible for a woman to lead a church in the West, yet they’d send her around the world by herself to preach (if she’s single) to the “heathen and uncivilized.” I do not note these things to disparage devoted missionaries and their work, but merely to comment on the culture of the time and the social strictures and traditions surrounding the emergence of the global missions movement. The fact that women still in 2012 are not permitted in most SBC-affiliated churches to preach in, much less lead, congregations is also tragic and in my mind the reason there continue to be far more women on the mission field than men where they can realize their spiritual gifts and call to ministry.

            The impact of women’s work, however undervalued it continues to be, has in reality been invaluable.  Many of us have heard of the SBC-affiliated yet self-governing and -funded Woman’s Missionary Union (WMU) - the namesake of a beloved freshman women’s dormitory on OBU’s Oval as well as of the WMU professorship in missions at OBU. It was founded by (Baptist) women for women and is now the largest Christian women’s missions group on the planet. It has also been somewhat successful in defying attempts at external control by the militant leadership of the SBC in recent decades.

            Probably the most well-known Baptist women were missionaries: Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon. Those of us who were raised in SBC-affiliated churches will likely recognize these names and the corresponding annual fundraising drives which occur during Easter and Christmas which bear their names.

            These women have made a huge impact in Southern Baptist life and in global missions. Since Lottie Moon, a 19^th century missionary in China, appealed to stateside Southern Baptists to set up a Christmas offering for foreign missions, this offering has since raised over one billion dollars for foreign missions.

           

The effect of the fundamentalist take-over of the IMB and Rankin’s new policy -- that missionaries sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message and conduct their work according to it -- had consequences even beyond the tragic firing and early retirement of over 100 missionaries and missionary couples. One IMB missionary friend overseas told me that, in her training, it was suggested as an outreach strategy that the male head of family (i.e. her husband) meet with other national male family heads, who, when converted, would initiate a “trickle-down” effect for the rest of the family. The wife was of course still expected to stay at home, raise the kids, and leave much of the real missions work to her husband. Now some couples may choose such an arrangement on their own. But my friend scoffed at the idea as a strategy then and now. She knew that’s not the way things work in the field or with relationships to reach an entire community; and not being raised in the South she was baffled by corresponding attitudes toward gender roles that she encountered in Richmond. It seems like some militant leaders want to export more than simply the Gospel.

The question still remains, however: why is it that the SBC still cannot bring itself to recognize the full God-given value and rights of over half the people in its churches? The 2000 BF&M has made the fundamentalist agenda toward women abundantly clear. To have been included so prominently in such a short document, you’d think the subject of non-ordination of women and female submission was one of their 5 Pillars-Fundamentals or something… but I’m rambling.

            First of all, forget the Whitlock-era administration ever hiring a female professor for Herschel Hobbs the School of Theology and Ministry. (We already know Drs. Norman and McClellan prohibit the hiring of women to teach theology or Bible. Maybe they'd allow a woman to teach children's ministry or missions. How progressive of them!) Secondly, I doubt their new hires are as likely to encourage their female students to pursue God’s gifts of ministry and leadership in their lives if they’re called outside of children’s ministry or missions. I remember well the intellectual and spiritual encouragement I received from a professor who was wrongly dismissed the summer after my graduation.

            It makes me very sad indeed to consider that future classes of Bison won’t experience the same encouragement I and others received if the goals of Provost Norman and BGCO executive director Anthony Jordan are realized.  Gender discrimination in both theology and policy has been one of the primary galvanizing forces for the Save OBU movement.  Two of the blog's most widely circulated posts are about women at OBU (here and here).

Jordan, by the way, chaired the committee that created the “submissive woman” article (Article XVIII) of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.

            As militant fundamentalists’ politics were incompatible with missions, so the BGCO’s goals for OBU are incompatible with the academic freedom and rigor required of a Christian liberal arts education like the one OBU was founded to provide. It is difficult to see how these two institutions can be complimentary, much less beneficial for one another in their current relationship. OBU must be made independent from the BGCO, as this tragic story of SBC missions illustrates. 

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Part 2 – In this post, we continue the story of the fundamentalist take-over of the IMB, specifically the decision to require all missionaries to sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We will see the consequences, and we will see just how honest Rankin was about the rationale and consequences of this move.
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

Now of course it’s not a bad idea to have general standards of doctrine for those who are employed by the IMB and sent across the world for the purpose of sharing their beliefs. However, these individuals already go through a litany of other procedures during the process to become missionaries with the IMB: documenting their own life journeys, writing confessions of faith, multiple interviews, training, etc. Not only that, but the requirement to sign any document like the one affirming the 2000 BF&M did not exist until 2002. Former IMB president Keith Parks (1981-1992) explained how Rankin’s policy is different from previous precedent. Parks told the Baptist Standard that, “Previously, SBC missionaries were asked in the interview process if they were in ‘substantial agreement’ with the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Now missionaries are being asked to sign in affirmation of the document. Furthermore, they are also being asked, Rankin told the Baptist Standard, to conduct their ministry work “‘in accordance with’ the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Tom Daniel, a former IMB missionary who refused to sign the 2000 BF&M wrote this:

In the Spring of 2002, the International Mission Board asked personnel to respond to 2 related issues: belief consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message; and signing an affidavit binding one's future ministry to its contents. The issues differ, as one is related to content of BFM and the other is related to freedom to interpret the leadership of the Holy Spirit (whether according to the whole counsel of God or the SBC-approved statement of faith).

The more I learn about this, I’m not only upset but baffled by this change in policy. These devoted missionaries already go through a litany of application and confirmation procedures, take leaps of faith to devote their lives to ministry, and many of them put their lives at risk. Why in addition ask our missionaries to sign the 2000 BF&M when their selection process is already so careful, intimate, and involved? Many missionaries, especially now in the day of the church-planting movement, are themselves pastors of international churches – so how can they be required to affirm this confession when no pastors stateside are? Rankin could argue all he wanted that this new policy was not a doctrinal litmus test for the IMB’s missionaries in an effort to further the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. However, the effect of the policy is still to actualize the controversial 2000 BF&M with all its political baggage in the ministries of each of these missionaries and at the same time to purify the IMB from missionaries who do not conform to the fundamentalist-crafted creed-like document.

In February of 2002, Rankin had told the press that it was only “pure speculation” that missionaries who refused to sign it would be terminated. But Rankin turned their speculation into reality (which he and the IMB board of trustees probably intended from the outset). The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) recognized the new policy for what it was, even creating a transition fund to help support missionaries who might lose their jobs because they could not sign it.

A year and four months later, the IMB then issued a May 5, 2003 deadline for missionaries to affirm the BF&M, according to a 2003 Christianity Today article from that month.

Tragically, missionaries were indeed terminated for their refusal to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. Christianity Today reported that by May 2003 thirteen missionaries had been fired and thirty missionaries had resigned or retired early. These numbers would rise.

Rankin’s response was brutal: “These missionaries are supported by Southern Baptist churches and should at least be willing to conduct their work in basic agreement with what Southern Baptists confess they believe.” Really? Is the 2000 BF&M really what all churches who freely affiliate with the SBC and who send funds to support missionaries “confess they believe”? Such a proposition is preposterous. The BF&M in any version has never a rallying point or a unifying creed for SBC churches. And far from being a document solely highlighting Baptist distinctive and beliefs, the 2000 BF&M was a controversial document to begin with which, as noted previously, the Baptist General Convention of Texas had actually rejected altogether.

Many of these terminated or resigned missionaries raised poignant and legitimate questions to Rankin and his of the board of trustees, such as:

§  How can the elite group of people at a convention of who crafted the 2000 BF&M claim to represent all Southern Baptists? Furthermore, how can that one document be the measure of our devotion to missions and common Baptist ideals?

§  Are not our consciences free before God and not subject to human beings?

§  How can they ask us to sign a document written by humans and revised already three times in the lifetime of some of these missionaries?

§  What gives SBC powerfuls the notion that they can use us as pawns in their political games?

Rankin wrote one missionary couple, the Dixons, that they were being terminated. He wrote that it was because of their “unwillingness to be accountable to Southern Baptists who send and support.” The Dixons responded in an open letter:  “Does the Holy Spirit Himself act always ‘in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith and Message?’…We need only witness events in China to discover that He does not: women serving as pastors, evangelists, church planters!”  You can read the rest of their open response to Rankin here: You also can find a list of the missionaries who were terminated or resigned early and read more of their stories, including open letters to Rankin and IMB trustees here [1].

Those missionaries who have signed in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M of course should not be judged. They acted as their consciences and faith permitted.

 I also respect the right of fundamentalists to hold their beliefs – but not their militancy. I think I understand their beliefs and where they’re coming from. But fundamentalism, similar to the 2000 BF&M itself, was constructed in terms of very American issues, a century old knee-jerk reaction to liberal theology and the perceived threat of modernism. As a missionary couple who refused to sign it noted, the BF&M is “culturally biased” and “culturally constructed” document! Many missionaries wanted to know how they can be expected to sign, much less conduct their future ministries according to such a document.

 But the militancy of leaders like those in the IMB lust after conformity and drive them to push for doctrinal rigidity especially in what should be non-essentials. This ideological warfare against traditional Baptist freedoms and against moderates (and really against even non-fundamentalist conservatives too) must stop.

What do these tragic bits of recent history have to do with us? I think the connections are drawn easily enough by our readership – those same militant leaders are gaining increasing control over OBU. As we’ve seen in the last couple years at OBU and through the documentation of this blog, this ideological warfare against non-fundamentalists is not merely a distant threat. It’s knocking down the doors on Bison Hill, which is why we’re trying to learn from history and be an advocate for OBU excellence before it’s too late for academic freedom and liberal arts high education.

For additional reading about this event, scroll to the bottom of this page for a list of articles.