When an institution of higher learning posts their standards on their website in three languages, is a self-described “evangelical” school, and clearly states in its statements and literature that it abides by biblical teachings, you’d think everyone would get the message, right?
Two homosexual students at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, Nathan Brittsan and Joanna Maxon, launched legal salvoes against the school Tuesday for allegedly violating their rights by adhering to the Bible’s definition of marriage. They both want $1 million for their troubles.
Brittsan is a pastor and Maxon is a former student. The news was shared by Christianity Today, the same publication who ran a piece by its then-editor strongly advising its readers to support President Trump’s removal from office.
The cases have wider implications, as other Christian schools go by the same biblical standards and receive Title IX waivers, exemptions from federal anti-discrimination codes, because of their religious status. If Fuller loses this case then the whole basis of a Christian school actually practicing Christianity is seriously undermined.
Fuller is being represented in this legal kerfuffle by the Becket Fund, a law firm specializing in religious liberty cases. Becket also took on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs. Both cases were wins for Becket and freedom of conscience.
And Fuller is not the only place this is going on. Students tried to get policy surrenders at Biola University and APU, both Christian universities, in regards to LGBT matters.
So this is obviously not an isolated incident, but part of a decades-long leftist campaign to make others march to their moral tune, to make Christians bow down and worship false idols – which, in this case, are ideologies.
Both Brittsan and Maxon specifically got in hot baptismal water because they decided to marry within their own gender. This is in clear violation of Fuller’s policy for students. It’s like going to play professional football, using only pro baseball rules, and then becoming indignant when the refs throw down flags.
Said Becket Fund attorney Daniel Blomberg, “The claims here are dangerous for faith-based institutions. If the court was to accept them, then they would be harmful to religious groups of all backgrounds and particularly minority religious groups that have beliefs that the majority and the surrounding communities might find unpopular … We think that’s unlikely that courts would accept these kinds of arguments because they’re weak claims. But they’re dangerous.”
Blomberg has a point. Whether the courts see it that way may be a different matter.