23 April, 2012
Dr. Steve Hayner, President
Columbia Theological Seminary
701 S. Columbia Drive
Decatur, GA
30031
Dear Dr. Hayner:
It was with great distress that I learned
today of the seminary’s decision concerning the continued policy of excluding
same-gender couples from campus housing.
Let me say from the outset that I
hold CTS in great affection and I am writing in that posture. It is my sincere hope that, in the spirit of
Christian fellowship, as an alumnus I may voice a firmly held disagreement with
the seminary’s action without jettisoning a relationship that has meant a great
deal to my life and ministry.
As you note in your memo to the campus these
are difficult issues in our denomination and the nature and role of same-gender
relationships is and will continue to be a matter of deep theological
discussion. As a matter of polity,
however, the church has spoken and determined that a universal policy
concerning same-gender relationships in relation to those preparing for or
entering into ministry is inappropriate.
The church has rejected any position that categorically discriminates
against GLBTQ individuals or sets one group of God’s children apart for lesser
treatment. Although there is not
universal agreement, the church has firmly staked its position on the principle
that all of God’s children are to be treated with respect and dignity and that
none should be set apart outside the community.
That the seminary has chosen to make an absolute policy against this
principle on the basis of continued disagreement within the church is
disappointing. If disagreement on a
question of human morality was determinative in seminary housing policy, our
campuses would be rife with empty apartments.
Consider a hypothetical. Abortion is an issue on which the PC(USA) has
taken an ambiguous position and on which many within the church disagree. As with the question of same-gender
relationships, we are not of one mind as a church on the question of
abortion. If, after prayerful
consideration, a student chose to abort a pregnancy, would that student be
denied housing because there is not consensus in the church on the morality of
that choice? Shall a thrice divorced and
remarried student be denied housing because a segment of the church may
question that moral choice? If that
student’s life choice does not offend a divided church, how can the seminary
legitimately say that two Christians in a loving and committed relationship do
so offend merely because they share gender?
By allowing disagreement in the church on this single issue to dictate
seminary policy, the institution implies that this particular issue and no
other is dispositive.
A neutral housing policy that treats no group
different than another would reflect an ethic that CTS is a campus on which
these disagreements may be openly discussed and debated by the whole church. By adopting a housing policy that takes a stand
on one issue and not others that divide the church, CTS cannot claim to be such
a place of open and broad dialogue. How
can the whole of the church live in open and honest engagement when a portion
of the church is categorically excluded?
It is my sincere hope that CTS will follow
the example of Austin Seminary and create room within the educational community
for all who would honestly come with open minds and willing intellect to grow
and learn together. That is the place of
the seminaries and we are blessed as a church to have such excellent
institutions of theological education in our tradition. There is no other place in the church where
the ethic of academic inquiry and the faithful theological life of the church
so fully come into contact.
I value deeply my time spent at
Columbia. My affection for the seminary
continues unabated and I hope that in time my confidence may be restored. I am,
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Dr. Robert Wm Lowry
D.Min ‘10
No comments:
Post a Comment