A friend of mine recently turned me on to this article criticizing Baylor for not allowing homosexual faculty. The writer made good arguments, well reasoned. Intelligent. Still once finished I found the arguments ring empty to me. He acknowledged Baylor's policies rely on "the authority of scripture". But yet the writer never argued against scripture or Baylor's understanding of it. He makes a strong humanist argument and also managed to throw in a presumptuous, "Jesus would have done this". There were no direct reference to any historical truth claim about Jesus yet the author has no problem making assumptions about what the Son of Man would do today.
If the policy is wrong then it's wrong because Baylor and every group of believers up until the last 200 years is either misinterpreting what Jesus, Paul, Moses, and other biblical writers included as "sexual immorality" at the time they were writing or the bible flat-out isn't worthy of being that source of authority because it isn't the source of authority and truth that it claims to be. The author doesn't even attempt to make either case. If you wanna argue, argue biblical misinterpretations or argue anti-bible. If you don't then I'm left with your highly-educated, well-formed, thought-out, kind arguments on one hand, and the truth of the living God on the other. No offense but you lose.
