THAT GOOD OLD BAYLOR LINE

That good old Baylor line!
That good old Baylor line!
We'll march forever down the years,
As long as stars shall shine.
We'll fling our green and gold afar
To light the ways of time,
And guide us as we onward go;
That good old Baylor line!

Baylor is the oldest university in the state of Texas, established in 1845, whereas the University of Texas wasn't founded until 1881. (This would make a great Jeopardy answer, "The oldest school in the state of Texas.") It's the world's largest Baptist college with 16,000 students.

The words above are those of Baylor's school song penned in the fall of 1931. Up until recently, Baylor's football teams were a joke of Rodney Dangerfield proportions for decades. ("They don't get no respect.") But a recent change at Baylor is no joke. The change is a change in language, in the wording of the university's policy.

To understand the change, let's look at the way it was:

"Baylor will be guided by the understanding that human sexuality is a gift from the creator God and that the purposes of this gift included (1) the procreation of human life and (2) the uniting and strengthening of the marital bond in self-giving love. These purposes are to be achieved through heterosexual relationships within marriage. Misuses of God's gift will be understood to include, but not be limited to, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts."

The new statement, replacing the old one:

"Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality."

We can easily see the omissions: the specific naming of "sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts" as is the positive statement about "heterosexual relationships as fulfilling God's purposes for marriage." We note the addition which turns the old explicit statement into fog, one which raises a question, a big question: What do they mean by "the context of marital fidelity"?

The Supreme Court recently redefined marriage, so is the statement in line with the new definition? Is the statement calling for "marital fidelity" in the context of the redefinition of marriage? Is the statement a cave-in courtesy to the world? Was the statement born of fear because the university board of governors read about the case of the Oregon bakers? Is Baylor compromising and trying to head off troubled times in court? Is Baylor fearful of offending?

Lori Fogleman, Baylor’s assistant vice president for media communications, said in an e-mail to The Washington Post that the changes “were made because we didn’t believe the language reflected Baylor’s caring community.” She went on to say, "We are pleased with the recent changes to the policy language and that it states more plainly the expectations of the university."

In support of the new statement, Sophomore Jailyn Parnell told The Lariat (the Baylor campus newspaper), “It is saying that we are not going to pinpoint homosexuals. It is saying that homosexual acts are wrong but heterosexual acts committed outside of marriage are also wrong. It is making it more equal.”

Say what? "More equal?" "Pinpointing homosexuals?" How's that possible when six other sins are mentioned in the old statement? And where does the new statement say that homosexual acts are wrong?

Really? More plainly? Fogleman said the statement is good because it states things more plainly. If the statement is so plain, then why did those who hailed the Supreme Court decision in June, praise the Baylor statement as a touchdown for their side, and why did others say that the statement was a reaffirmation of the Bible's definition of marriage, a statement which showed Baylor to be a "caring community." (One might ask, "What does that mean?" Is it an act of caring to stop calling sin "sin?")

If the statement is so plain, why did the two groups read the same statement, examine its wording, and come to two opposite conclusions as to its meaning? If it's so plain, why are both sides pleased with it? The statement is like something we'd hear from a consummate politician, a statement so vague that both sides take it as a victory.

We could ask the question, "And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?" (I Cor. 14:8)

That good old Baylor line; in saying something, they said nothing. Or did they?