Recently I shared an article on Facebook about a professor at a Christian college being ousted over “woke” posts he made online (https://tinyurl.com/yh8sd4at). What I said, when sharing the article, was “I’m glad I’m not looking for a job in “christian” circles.
Twenty-one years ago, I went on staff at a larger Christian university. At the time of my hiring, as well as every year I remained on staff, I had to agree to a rather long statement of faith and employee code of conduct. The statement of faith fell somewhere near the typical Evangelical statement of faith at the time, although on a few points it may have been closer to those held by fundamentalists. As for the code of conduct, there were prohibitions against consuming alcohol, sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, dancing, etc.
In 2003, I was likely in agreement with most of the main points in the statement of faith I signed. I was comfortable enough, at least, to sign it in good faith. I believed, even in the areas I felt there could be more nuanced positions, that the statement was acceptable.
As for the code of conduct, my understanding of the code was the university didn’t want to have to police where the line was on certain practices, such as consuming alcohol or dancing, so it asked employees to abstain as a condition for employment. So, even if one could legitimately argue that those practices were not wrong or sinful, they would set aside their personal preferences to conform to the community standards of their employer. More recently, when I went back to look at the code, which according to the revision date would have been in place when I was still employed there, I found that some of the requirements I viewed as personal preferences, the university viewed more seriously. The code employees are required to sign says that the school does not consider the requirements to be matters of personal preference, but required indicators to prove one was a good Christian in their eyes.
Fast forward several years. In 2012 I became a pastor. After accepting the position, I was asked to go through the ordination process. There were a series of questions for each candidate, and after submitting our written answers, we had to go before an ordination board (around 6 current or former pastors from the denomination) who ultimately would make a recommendation for or against ordination. At that point I wasn’t interested in forcing my beliefs into neat little boxes. So, I answered their questions with a book; something like 30 pages of typed responses. The ordination council laughed at my book, citing that they had never had a candidate go into as much detail on any of the questions asked. In the end, my nuanced answers were acceptable, and I was recommended for ordination.
For the past 2000 years those seeking to follow Jesus have had legitimate disagreements over what different teachings in the Bible mean. Within a generation of Jesus’ ministry, the apostle Paul acknowledged that disagreements would happen. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them...Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” (Romans 14:1-3, 5b NASB).
When it comes to doctrines of Christianity, I feel safe in saying most Christians over the past two millennia would acknowledge that there are primary beliefs, secondary beliefs, tertiary beliefs, and so forth. There are numerous “creeds” of the Christian faith, that sum up what different groups at different times believed were the essentials to be orthodox in one’s Christian faith. And when we read through these creeds, we see a lot of doctrines and beliefs that are not mentioned. In other words, the councils that compiled the creeds did not think other issues rose to the level of primary beliefs necessary to be orthodox in one’s Christian beliefs. And I think that’s good. Not all beliefs need to fit into easily organizable boxes or be able to be categorized in a systematic theology book. And not all beliefs are of primary importance. To deny the resurrection of Christ is on a vastly different level than to deny young earth creationism, no matter what Ken Ham says. The first has been considered an essential part of Christian theology by most Christians throughout history, and the second is only considered an essential part of Christian theology by a small group of Christians over the past half-century.
For most of my first three decades of life I felt it was necessary to categorize and systematize my beliefs into rigid boxes. Everything was good or evil, black or white, up or down, etc. But more recently I’ve started to understand that there is more nuance in the teachings of the Bible than I had ever realized. Christians can and do, in good faith, come to different understandings of what the Bible means when different topics are mentioned. And this is what I would expect from a book a compiled book that was written by around 40 individuals over a period of roughly 2000 years. Even if we all agree that there was a divine element to the text, I believe we also can acknowledge that God used fallen humans to spread and later translate the message.
As I mentioned earlier, when I first took a position working for the Christian university I did, my understanding of their code of conduct was the employees were being asked, no matter what their beliefs were on secondary or tertiary issues, to voluntarily give up their rights to act upon those beliefs so as not to offend a conservative Christian. (After all, Romans does say that the more conservative Christian is the one with weaker faith (14:2)). But, as I later came to realize, since they believe secondary or beyond issues are essential elements of determining if one has been transformed by God’s grace, I no longer believe I could in good conscience sign such a statement. Such statements, in my understanding, are equivalent to the hypocrisy Jesus condemned in Matthew 23. There, Jesus told a crowd that those in authority had taken it upon themselves to determine what everyone must do. Of this, Jesus said “they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger. And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people...” (Vs.4-5) Jesus went on to say “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.” (v.15). When we add to what is required for someone to be living in the grace of God, we go against what Paul said in Romans 14: “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” (V.13).
The article I shared, regarding Professor Warner’s dismissal, suggests what many people who have left working for Christian institutions have believed for a while: Political leanings often carry more weight than theological convictions.
“As Christian colleges vie for a dwindling number of incoming students, many are struggling to navigate the chasm between the convictions of conservative stakeholders and those of their more theologically, politically and racially diverse faculty and student bodies. In many cases, precarious finances have led schools to prioritize the former.”
One of the Facebook posts linked in the article, calling for Warner’s dismissal, over 60 screenshots from the Professor’s social media accounts were shared. Most of the posts used to argue that Warner was unfit to teach were not on religious grounds, but political. If Warner’s critics had argued based on fewer posts, specifically ones that were religious in nature, they may have been able to make the claim that this was more than a politically motivated move. But they showed their hand, with the influx of political comments that they found to be unfit for a professor at a Christian college.
Social media, especially X-formerly known as Twitter, limits post size. Therefore, there isn’t much room for nuance. As I scrolled through Dr. Warner’s screenshot posts, I found that I agreed with most of his points. While, if he and I were to get together and hash out why he believes what he shared, we may find some nuance we disagree over. But from my vantage point, his disagreement with the political stances of Republican politicians is what raised the ire of his critics. And when many of the student’s parents, or large donors to a school or organization are part of one political party, Warner’s political statements—even those I believe can be backed with teachings from the Bible—are too much for his critics to accept. This begs the question if political affiliation has become a sacred cow for many American Christians.
Before I was employed full time at a Christian university, I had worked part time in another department at the school. I remember hearing a co-worker, probably in her 50’s, say one day that she could never work with a Democrat. The implication was that she worked with Christians, and one couldn’t be a Christian and Democrat. When I scrolled through the screenshot Tweets of Dr. Warner, I wasn’t surprised to find most of the reasons his detractors felt he was unqualified to teach at a Christian school were his critiques of the Republican party.
Over the past 25+ years I have worked many different jobs. Some of the jobs were part-time, some were seasonal, some were full-time. My positions span the spectrum of different types of jobs. Some were small businesses; others were large corporations. Some were run by Christians, others were not.
As I look back at all of the jobs I’ve worked, an overwhelming majority had/have nothing but good to say about me, my character and work ethic. I’ve had past employers talk to me about running a regional office for them. I had a boss say if he could clone me his job would be much easier. I interviewed for a position to run a department of 50 or so employees and was offered the position (which I turned down due to compensation package not being equal to the workload). I’ve had multiple bosses say that I can work for them anytime, with any job.
And then there are three outliers. In only three cases, my character was called into question by those at my job. The common denominators amongst those three jobs are they were all run by conservative Christians, and my character was called into question for not falling in line with what they perceived to be a “good” Christian. I was the same person that other Christian bosses had praised, but whether founded or not, the outliers' criticisms have stuck with me.
Having spent most of my life in fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christian circles shaped how I viewed myself. I was in my 40’s by the point I was able to believe the positive things people had said about me. Before that, any self-evaluation basically consisted of the content of the many alter calls I sat through--I am a wretched person. The hymns said it. The preachers said it. And oft quoted Bible verses, as I have learned were not always quoted in context, said it. Those with authority over me said I was a bad person. And as a result, that was the only way I could ever see myself. When a manager praised my work, I would deflect. What I had been taught, or had caught, was that there is no distinction between acceptable and sinful pride. All pride is bad. Believing this affected how I perceived myself, and my accomplishments. It took my third deconstruction to finally see the error of my former way of thinking. While I still am keenly aware of my faults and sins, I now believe that there is good in me as well.
When I was employed by the Christian university, from 2002-2007, I worked in the news division of their Christian radio network. While I had paid attention to the news since childhood, for a five-year stretch, news was my job—and a huge part of my life. Even when I wasn’t at work, I would immerse myself in what was going on in the world.
Mid-way through my tenure at the network, I started my second deconstruction. This deconstruction started after spending time studying the gospels. As I immersed myself in the teachings of Jesus, I found it difficult to reconcile those teachings with the platform and policies of both political parties. I especially found fault with many of the goals of the Republican party, the party I was raised in and the party that claimed to have God on their side. As I worked to disentangle my Christian faith from the politics which had become intertwined, I found myself moving towards the anabaptist two-kingdom theology. This theology views the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of Christ as separate and usually opposed to each other. Followers of Jesus live in the kingdoms of this world, but their citizenship is to be in Jesus’ kingdom. When the two are at odds, which they usually are, we must follow Jesus. Previously, I had wholeheartedly supported Republicans and Republican ideology. But as I began to compare the ideology of the right with what the Bible said, I found the two had little in common.
For about twenty years, I’ve been working to align the way I vote and live as a citizen of an earthly kingdom with my call to live as a citizen of Jesus’ kingdom. At times I can vote for a candidate or proposal with a clear conscience. At other times I cannot. I have wrestled with walking this line personally, but at times I have shared my journey publicly. I have received much push back, which has helped me hone my beliefs. Places like Facebook, online discussion groups and the blogosphere have allowed me to meet people who desire to follow the teachings of Jesus yet hold different theological beliefs than I was raised with. This has widened my circle of friends, helping me to understand that Christianity is a much broader camp than my fundamentalist/evangelical camp taught me. I’ve learned that there are sincere people trying to follow God that have beliefs quite different from the Dispensational theology and Christian nationalism I was steeped in.
Recently I was listening to an episode of The Holy Post Podcast. In the episode (https://tinyurl.com/47fa4j9y), co-host Skye Jethani talked about when he was a pastor, he once preached a sermon about identity. In the sermon he mentioned the danger of getting one’s identity from their political involvement, instead of being connected to Jesus. A parishioner approached Skye after the sermon, confused by what was said. Skye asked the man “is it more important to you that your children grow up and are committed to following Jesus, or that they grow up and are committed to voting for your political party?” The man responded by saying “What’s the difference?” This type of unholy union between faith and politics seems to me to be more and more common, as the Dr. Warner story shows us.
There is another point in the Dr. Warner story that I would like to address: Christian organizations asking former employees to sign confidentiality agreements or non-disclosure agreements (NDA). If everything is being handled in an ethical and above-board way, why require an NDA? I am convinced that NDAs should almost never be used by Christian organizations. I intentionally used the term “almost” to cover the extremely rare case where one might be appropriate—although I have not found a concrete example yet. I’ve read of many Christian organizations requiring NDAs to be signed as part of a severance package. As far as I’m concerned, if a group has nothing to hide, they should not ask people to keep secrets.
When I originally posted the link to the article, and my short comment, I received a private message from a friend. The message asked a number of questions, including why I felt my post was warranted. The questioner was asking serious questions, which I took to heart. I addressed some of the questions directly to the one asking, but also pondered whether it would be beneficial to address my more in-depth response to a wider audience. After all, when I posted the article, I did say “I’m glad I’m not looking for a job in ‘christian’ circles.” My original comment was not a rash comment. It was the result of years of learning, experience and, --if I’m truly vulnerable--pain. I’ve learned that many squeaky wheels are not motivated by a sincere desire for Truth, but by other motivating factors. I’ve learned that not all who claim to be concerned about upholding “christian” standards actually mean Christian, instead of a political or religious or cultural tradition. And, in the end, I often find the standards many in “christian” organizations demand their employees to uphold amount to little other than tying “up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4 NASB). And as a result, I truly am glad I’m not looking for a job in those types of “christian” circles. I spent years, maybe even decades, in those circles. I have found such circles to be stifling, and not life-giving. And as a result, until I see genuine improvement, I will likely continually to be glad that I’m not looking for a job in those circles.
