Early this week, a former professor of mine died. Many readers of Evangelically Departed will not know the name, but those who do will likely have a positive memory. Gordon Fee was a professor at Regent College in Vancouver when I was a student in the early 1990’s. He taught courses having to do with New Testament interpretation. He was engaging and thoughtful and most of his lectures turned into sermons. He could be talking about a theological concept or the interpretation of a particular verse and he would be moved to tears. Theology was not a disconnected discipline for Fee. He was the opposite of Karl Barth’s reminder that if the theologian ceases to be astonished then they are not much good for anything. Gordon Fee’s astonishment was evident and compelling. It made you feel like you were part of something bigger. It opened up vistas.
A friend of mine, who worked at Regent College while Gordon Fee was on staff, sent me a video clip after his death. It was from seven years ago and, already at the time, Fee was suffering from Alzheimers. He spoke briefly in a seminar setting and he referenced his declining health. He said that his memory had broken such that he forgot the most basic things, but that, at the same time, memories of long past days had come back vividly. He didn’t romanticise the disease, but he did say that he could see some gifts in it. Even in illness, he said, God is good.
He then got to the things that he seemed to want to tell the people gathered. He said that it was more important to be good than to be right. He said that he did also care about being right. Much of his career as pastor and professor had been defined by seeking to interpret well and properly. It mattered to him. Still, he said, what we should care about most is goodness. There is not much point in being right if you are not headed towards being good.
As I have prayed prayers of gratitude for the few, but significant, encounters with Gordon Fee in my life, I have felt a corresponding sadness around the call to be good. It, too, has to do with Regent College, the school from which I obtained my Master’s Degree.
In reading the gracious honouring of Fee that Regent posted on its website, I decided to look around a bit. I have heard that Regent has a Doctrinal Statement and a Moral Vision Statement that faculty and senior staff must sign. I read the statements and felt a sorrow. They sounded, to me, like Regent is now much more committed to being right than to being good. You will likely not be surprised to hear that some of this sorrow was prompted by statements about sexuality and morality. The moral vision document includes a substantial section constructed with a “on-the-one-hand,” “but-on-the-other-hand” framework. To get a full sense you might want to read the entire statement. I don’t wish to misrepresent it in any way. Here are some quotes from it;
“On the one hand, there is the imperative to include and to embrace others – the imperative to be hospitable towards and respectful of those who are different from us. This hospitality and respect should extend to those who are different from us in sex (male and female)…”
“On the other hand, there is the imperative to challenge and correct others, where they adopt postures or indulge in behaviour that is out of line with the Christian moral vision…”
After drawing this frame, the statement gives some examples of what Regent sees as appropriate moral choices. These include:
“Choices and actions that are informed by an acceptance that in God’s creation purposes the physical expression of our sexuality may only rightly occur within a marriage between one man and one woman; that marriage itself is designed to last a lifetime; and that celibacy is the right path for those who are not married.”
There is also a shot at other schools in the statement.
“…in a world that has become accustomed to thinking of educational institutions as concerned only with thinking and not with virtue. We reject such a view of the educational institution.”
Really? Isn’t a chief conservative complaint about educational institutions that they seek to impose virtue rather than to simply teach? What educational institutions are they speaking about? Is Regent’s complaint not that schools are unconcerned with virtue, but rather that they have a different view of what is virtuous than Regent does?
I do not know what Gordon Fee would have to say about all of this (perhaps he would be on the other side of many issues than me). I do not want to enlist him and his words to defend the view that I hold. What I can say is that the sorrow I feel over the statement above, for me, aligns with Fee’s reminder about theology headed towards goodness more than rightness. My ignorance about Regent’s history pertaining to these matters includes not knowing if there was a demand, while I was a student there, for faculty to sign a moral vision document. At that time, in a school that was connected with the evangelical church, a particular posture on what was moral in regards to sex and marriage was likely just assumed.
My sense is that we have made moral progress since then. My sense is that many Christian theologians and pastors have come to see that, in their view, biblical interpretation around matters of sexuality was influenced as much by prevailing views and divisions as it was by the text itself. Maybe the text does not as clearly say what we were told that is says.
In the early 1990’s, in a lecture at Regent College, Gordon Fee warned about Christian nationalism. I remember it as an aside, and Fee became very animated in saying it. He was from the United States, and he noted that there were politicians and religious leaders in the United States who were wrapping the cross with the American flag. He said that this was not Christian, it was, in his words, idolatry.
My sorrow is that, as I read the moral vision document, I see a commitment to being right, at least what they see as right. I feel a sorrow for the number of students I know who went to Regent and are part of the LGBTQ community. What does a “moral vision” statement like this mean to them?
I consider my own Christian faith. In following Jesus, what does it mean that (according to Regent) “there is an imperative to challenge and correct others when they adopt postures or indulge in behaviour that is out of line with the Christian moral vision”? Would they accept challenge and correction from people who think differently than them, or are they the only ones who get to challenge and correct others? Do they mean the Christian moral vision or do they mean Regent’s interpretation of the Christian moral vision? Do they mean the “Regent’s moral vision” or do they assume that their moral vision is what is properly defined as Christian? That’s quite a claim.
Karl Barth, in speaking about the Bible said the following, “The Bible tells us not how we should talk with God, but what God says to us; not how we find our way to God, but how God has found the way to us.”
I mention this because the moral vision statements of Regent (and other institutions) serve as gatekeepers. Who is in? Who is out? Who gets to have relationships that include sexual expression? If we get things right, maybe we will find our way to God.
Often, when I was asked to sign a “statement of faith” or “moral vision” document when I worked as a pastor in an evangelical church, I crossed out some sections or included a note beside others. I was never called to account for such things. I can only guess as to why. When I was asked to fill out reference forms for students applying to Bible schools, I would make note (to myself, almost never on the form itself), that Jesus would be rejected as as student. He clearly had the wrong friends and was morally suspect, according to the questions asked.
It’s a cheap shot, I know, but I note that Jesus did not require his followers to sign a moral vision document. He called them to goodness by way of invitation to follow. I, among very many others, accepted that invitation. For me, Regent College was a formational and greatly appreciated part of my Christian growth and life. I am grateful for Regent, even as I part company with statements like their current “moral vision.” I find it neither moral, nor visionary. I find that it looks backwards and tries, first of all, to be right. I am hoping for better than right. I am hoping for good.
If everyone would find and follow their own moral compass and allow others to do the same, we would see a lot of division and judgment melt away. There is no one religion/belief system that stands above all others. God is much larger than that and is able to embrace everyone. Let's aim to be more like God. Thanks for a thoughtful post, Todd.
Good and challenging Todd.
Thank you.