I have written before about what is termed as the “moral vision statement” of Regent College here in Vancouver. Regent is the theological school from which I received a Master’s Degree in Theological Studies. I found enormous benefit and intellectual and theological rigor at Regent. Regent even made a positive difference in my faith as I experience it. The courses and professors (for the most part) and readings have been formational and largely foundational in the work that I have done since. I am grateful for Regent, for those who founded it, and helped it to grow.
However, all of that can be true at the same time that a feeling of disappointment and questioning of direction is held.
This past week, Regent College was in the news for its handling of the case of a professor who was let go from Regent and, soon after, took a position teaching at another theological school on other side of the country. The reason that Regent was in the news was because the professor had recently been fired from the school to which he moved after Regent. The dismissal came after an investigation into inappropriate behaviour and correspondence with female students. In the course of the investigation, it was asked what occasioned the parting of ways from Regent College. Specifically the professor was asked, “Was there ever a sexual harassment complaint made against you at (previous institution)?” His reply was “I do not see how it’s in my interest to answer that question.”
I suppose that it is true, given what the news investigations found about the professor’s dismissal from Regent, that it was not in his best interest to answer. This man was a professor of theology, often offering his strong opinions on culture and ethics in the church and the world. He gladly accepted interview requests (from the very outlet that ran the initial news story) in the process building a public persona. He pontificated in the media on things like morality, culture, and ethics in society from a Christian perspective. In his answer to the question about previous complaints, we see that, when things hit close to home, the interest that he was most interested in was his own. That is, what might be called “moral vision”.
Further details discovered from his departure from Regent and hiring by another school would reveal that both the professor and Regent College were bound by a non-disclosure agreement. Now, both the professor and representatives of Regent College could appeal to privacy and to honouring an agreement in their actions of saying nothing about complaints received or how they were handled. This action, or lack thereof, could also be labelled moral. Everyone involved (excepting the complainants, I assume) could hold their heads high and cast themselves as honouring, not only a legal agreement, but also a moral standard.
(Regent’s public statement at the time (2015) that the professor was hired by another institution is below.)
The current President of Regent College has, no doubt, felt beleaguered by the attention over these matters. A national broadcaster ran a major news story that largely focused on Regent’s handling of the professor’s departure. There has been little in the way of public statements, but there was an expression, from the current President of hoping to better address the situation and of hoping for the flourishing of Regent College in the future.
All of this, the interest of the professor, the interest of Regent, has got me thinking about what questions leaders of Christian institutions ask themselves as part of their leadership. What is not as visible is action taken in the interest of the complainants.
I used to say to the leadership and the congregation where I worked as a pastor for many years that the first question I should ask as a Christian leader is not “What is best for this church?” The interest of the institution and its flourishing ought not be confused with the larger call of Christian faith. That larger call, particularly in terms of morality, would first have to do with people flourishing, with responding particularly to the complainants or victims, even above the interest of the institution. The reason that most religious institutions get into circumstances like the one Regent is seeking to address right now is that they confuse what is best for the institution, and by extension its leaders, with what it means to serve God. What if serving God runs counter to the so-called flourishing of the institution?
We have seen it over and over again. The recent report on abuse within the Southern Baptist denomination was saturated with rationalization of cover-up motivated by “the best interests of the church”. Truly positive moral vision does at least this; (moving close to quoting scripture now), it requires us to put the interest of others above our own. Check out Philippians chapter 2 - “Your attitude should be like that of Christ Jesus who, though being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” The same passage says that we ought (like Jesus) to consider others’ interest better (or before) ourselves.
I don’t consider myself better or more qualified to tell others what moral vision they should have than those navigating this particular crisis My consternation over matters like this, in the case of the professor and Regent, is that both the professor and Regent clearly felt, and apparently still feel, that they are somehow moral arbiters in the world. Regent, in publishing its moral vision statement has assumed that people are looking to Regent for moral leadership. They see themselves as protecting or maintaining some kind of moral virtue that, in the case of Regent, has had particular impact on students who do not identify as heterosexual. Regent, not me, choose to call this “moral vision”. When an actual moral challenge confronted them, as in the case of what to do about a professor who has been the subject of harassment complaints, the moral vision was to seek to protect the institution and, as consequence, the professor himself. This, more than the statement on the website, is what we can assume is their moral vision.
From what the President of Regent has said since the news reports, there is a real desire to do better. Would such doing better include an actual wrestling with what it truly means to have moral vision?
Here is hoping.
Todd, I attended Regent College and found the experience life giving.
Later I attended a conference at Regent and was sexually assaulted in plain sight, if you can believe it. I alerted the president. Long story short the visiting professor from a well-known seminary in the US, was contacted, he said he didn't do it, but apologized if there was anything he did that may have been misconstrued. I asked if Regent College could delete him from their files for future invitations to speak at Regent.
It took me a year before I could enter the space again where the conference was held. My trust of Christian events has never returned.
Thank you for your work, Deborah.