Are deliberations damaging CCCU's witness?

WASHINGTON—As the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) continues to deliberate over the membership status of Eastern Mennonite University (EMU) and Goshen College, one member president is taking his perspective public.

Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University (OKWU) in Bartlesville, Okla., is distributing a position paper in which he argues that the CCCU’s ongoing discussion—regarding two schools that last month changed their hiring policies to include same-sex couples—damages the council’s effectiveness and Christian witness:

“Presumably there are some things within any organization that are not, and should not be, subject to deliberation and any discussion to the contrary simply betrays a telling lack of conviction. For example, would anyone expect the Anti-Defamation League to ‘discuss’ whether or not Jews are human beings, worthy of the same dignity and rights as Germans or Iranians? Would anyone dare challenge the NAACP for its predictable reluctance to ‘deliberate’ the Dred Scott decision’s definition of a black man? Would any of us seriously condemn the National Organization of Women because it doesn’t want to seek ‘counsel’ on whether or not women ought to be subjugated to the power and privilege of men? Would PETA ‘deliberate’ the health benefits of eating meat? Would we expect Green Peace [sic] to ‘discuss’ the advantages of harvesting whales?

“I surely hope the answer to all these questions is no. I would assume that all the aforementioned organizations would consider some agendas to be so abhorrent (presumably including the examples I mention) as to be beyond dispute. In like manner, I would argue that any organization claiming the adjective ‘Christian’ should consider certain ideas so far outside the boundaries of any definition of Christianity that they would simply say: ‘Some things are just not debatable, the discussion is over.’

“So, I have to ask the question: Why the discussion? Why the deliberation? Why is a Bible-honoring organization having a conversation about the acceptability of behavior that is explicitly prohibited in the Bible? Why is an organization that purports to be representing Christian higher education willing to even consider an agenda that many (on the Left and the Right) believe to be an existential threat to Christian higher education? Why? Could it be that the CCCU’s openness to dialogue has actually become the offense because its ambivalence demonstrates an apparent lack of conviction in favor of consensus?”

Earlier this month, Union University became the first school to withdraw from the council over the continued membership of EMU and Goshen. Last week, Piper told me he and several other member presidents agreed to follow suit at the end of August if the council had not made a decision by that time.

A spokeswoman for the CCCU called Piper’s comments a “mischaracterization” of the process, saying the discussion is about membership criteria, not theological beliefs.

“The board is not calling the presidents to take a poll on theology,” said Shapri LoMaglio, the council’s vice president for government and external relations. “In January 2015, the board promised to consult with all of the members in the event EMU expanded their hiring criteria. … Our board considers this a top priority and is moving with all due diligence and urgency.”

LoMaglio declined to say when the process might come to a conclusion.

In his position paper, Piper maintains there is nothing left to discuss:

“The Council’s insistence on discussing, ad infinitum, the merits of membership for colleges and universities who have forthrightly announced that they intend to celebrate and sanction sexual behavior specifically condemned in Scripture implies an openness to redefine the subject (i.e. biblical morality) by input and vote. Otherwise what is their point? One might ask the leadership and board of the CCCU the rhetorical question: What will you do if your ‘deliberative’ and ‘consultative process’ (their words, not mine) reveals a consensus in favor of sanctioning the homosexual act as a moral good? Would such a hypothetical vote (unlikely though it may be) have any bearing on your final decision? I surely hope not, but the bewildering desire to engage in this lengthy conversation causes one to wonder if the organization might be willing to follow the voice of the crowd rather than stand resolute in the teaching of the Church and revelation of Christ.”

This article has been edited to clarify the response of CCCU spokeswoman Shapri LoMaglio.