Comments

I still think it's ridiculous that a part of one's personal life completely unrelated to one's position can mean the difference between employment or not.

Disclaimer: I wrote a longer (and much more thorough) column for the aforementioned Record on this very subject. My righteous indignation is still there, but I don't want to explain myself again.

As much as this case saddens me, the institutional rules are what they are. All communities have guidelines by which people are expected to live. It is these guidelines that define the community for what it is.

Wheaton's stance is that divorce is not condoned; yet there is a provision for grace. Dr. Gramm has chosen, for his own reasons, not to appeal to that grace. While I respect him greatly for protecting his (ex) wife's privacy (his case would have only been heard by a small, confidential group, I'm sure), you can't have your cake and eat it.

As a student at Wheaton, I have agreed to live by certain standards as well. I can do whatever I want to do, but there are consequences for every action. The magnitude of divorce certainly overshadows this whole situation, but at least Wheaton is generally consistent in its application of discipline.

What a sticky, heartbreaking situation. When is grace necessary? When must an institution uphold its standards unwaveringly? And what kinds of employee discrimination are acceptable, even at a Christian college, which is still an academic institution and not a church? This raises so many questions and I hope people will work hard at answering some of them.

Great blog! A helpful and succinct presentation of all the buzz around this controversy. This has helped me see the real issues at hand.

a couple thoughts--

1. Christians are often accused of being inconsistent in discussing family issues--i.e., how can you be vocal on homosexuality but silent on no-fault divorce? Opposing no-fault divorce is one step toward consistency and one step away from hypocrisy. I think firing Christian professors who do not defend their life choices is one way to make that statement.

2. Teachers at Christian universities are role models for young Christians. This issue is more than a question of tenure or employer and employee relations.

It's a shame that a tricky complicated situation like this would shed a bad light on such a great institution as Wheaton College.

This is not a simple situation. I highly doubt that the Wheaton College administration consists of merciless arbiters who are watching Dr. Gramm leave with a perverse smile of triumph on their faces. They are people who I'm sure know Dr. Gramm well, since he's been at Wheaton for twenty years, and at the very least care for him greatly.

However, they also recognize that the college has rules in place that Dr. Gramm agreed to follow when he signed his contract. I'm guessing that Dr. Gramm would have had to submit his reasons to a board made of other professors who could not simply throw out the rules they agreed to follow just because they did not like them.

I have no doubt that any professor on that board would have liked to have had Dr. Gramm stay at Wheaton. However, they have to report to others within the college, with the chain of command eventually making its way up to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has to look at the school like a business. The truth is there are a lot of incredibly generous people out there who might take their generosity elsewhere should the college start throwing out rules. I'm not saying that I like it, I'm just doing my best to understand why a group of intelligent, caring individuals make the decisions they make.

Well spoken Dr. Gramm:

"I think it's wrong to have to discuss your personal life with your employer," Gramm told the Chicago Tribune, "and I also don't want to be in a position of accusing my spouse, so I declined to appeal or discuss the matter in any way with my employer."

I agree with both sentiments and the decision.

As I read this story, I am crushed at the implication scattered among the onlookers that the Christian community can't get its act together.

Were I to be hired at Wheaton College, I would likely have to sign a contract that includes some "rules" of behavior. The school has every right to require what it will; and when I sign on, I am submitting to those rules.

In order to see those rules superseded, I could only expect to have my behavior considered. This necessitates, it seems to me, that I talk about that behavior.

Dr. Gramm has choices. Those choices should be honored. If he chooses not to discuss his situation; that should be honored; but then in making that choice, I believe he also forgoes discussing that situation in the public press.

Without knowing the specifics in this case, I don’t think any one can make an informed judgment about whether Dr. Gramm should continue at Wheaton. He has the right to protect his former spouse and her dignity. I am encouraged that he has chosen to honor her in this way.

The fact remains that if he refuses to discuss it within the community, he should not do so outside the community.

Yes, they should fire the divorcing person as long as they fire everyone else who commits a sin or makes a mistake.

Is divorce a specifically moral issue? I'm not sure that Jesus ever made that distinction. When asked, He answered according to the terms of the question, which were based, first, on the Mosaic Law requiring a divorcing husband to give the woman a document showing that she was free to remarry. Second, and more to the point was the ethical question as was being discussed in that day between the two main rabbinical schools on "Cause" vs. "Without Cause" divorce. In this one case of His siding with a tradition already being taught He sided with the more conservative group in saying that the husband had better have good cause before declaring a divorce. He did say that the intention for marriage, as instituted from the Garden, was an insoluble union, but that was before the Fall. Before adultery, abuse, incest, and attempted murder as does actually happen within the real-world marriages today. Christian marriages should be an entirely different story, but the same churches who are saying so are also preaching that salvation is only a pass ticket out of Hell, and that sin is as much part of the Christian's life as the unbeliever's. So we do what we are taught is the best we can expect, and then get ostracised for bearing the consequences either of our own or someone else's sin? Somewhere, somehow, I think we have a problem on our hands a lot bigger than the scandal that a teacher's marriage collapsed; part of which is the way in which his pain is addressed by those who are called to be in this world just as was Jesus.

Much of this discussion seems to be based on a false dilemma between grace and discipline. This is both fallacious and unfortunate. God's grace for us does not negate our need for discipline. Indeed God's love causes Him to act toward us in ways that lead to our repentance, if necessary, healing and restoration. This often requires discipline. Loving, appropriate discipline is not contrary to God's grace, it is a fitting and sometimes crucial element of it. Churches are instructed to exercise this kind of graceful discipline, and it seems equally necessary for Christian institutions that operate according to biblical standards to do the same.

Should Christian educational institutions have no policy whatsoever regarding divorce? If not, why have any moral or behavioral requirements at all? Wheaton's policy on divorce appears a serious attempt to be true to scriptural principles. And they seem to be striving to carry out their policy with grace and sensitivity.

Does Kent Gramm's divorce constitute a sin that requires the loving, graceful discipline of the school? Possibly. Unfortunately, Kent Gramm has prevented the school leaders from knowing this. But Wheaton is more than merely the employer in this situation, and it is more than merely an educational institution. It is an evangelical Christian educational institution, and it has a higher standard to uphold.

AS A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN AND ATTORNEY I HAVE DEFENDED MANY CHRISTIANS IN DIVORCE LITIGATION. WHILE NY STATE IS IN THE MINORITY IN THAT IT IS ONE OF ABOUT 12 STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE PURE "NO FAULT" DIVORCE LAWS. DESPITE THIS MY EXPERIENCE WAS THAT MOST JUDGES PROMOTED DIVORCE. WHILE NONE ACTUALLY SAID IT, SOME GAVE ME THE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR ATTITUDE WAS NO MATTER WHAT THE PLAINTIFF SAYS I WILL SAY I BELIEVE IT (EVAN IF I DON'T) AND GRANT THE DIVORCE. WHILE THE COURTS NEED REFORM THE LAWS DO ALSO.

WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE I SUPPORT WHEATON'S DECISION BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE GAVE THEM NO BASIS TO DECIDE OTHERWISE.

DAN ERIKSEN

David said: "I still think it's ridiculous that a part of one's personal life completely unrelated to one's position can mean the difference between employment or not."

What David does not understand is that Gramm's actions are most certainly related to his position. Leaders in Christian organizations (churches, ministries, schools, colleges, etc.) subject themselves to a higher standard than the average employee not in a position of leadership. By assuming the position of professor, Gramm became a role model for hundreds, thousands of students. A public institution would not likely care much about his personal life, but a Christian college such as Wheaton is distinctly different. Wheaton talks a lot about the integration of faith and learning. Can you imagine a professor who is breaking his marriage vows being entrusted with molding these students who are at Wheaton because they want a faith-integrated education? Talk about hypocrisy. Gramm will make a good employee somewhere, I would imagine, but he does not belong in a position of Christian leadership.

Curt, you said, Does Kent Gramm's divorce constitute a sin that requires the loving, gracefual discipline of the school? Possibly. Unfortunately, Kent Gramm has prevented the school leaders from knowing this

I have seen one partner treat the other quite disgracefully while the wronged party, out of a remaining love and loyalty, may take over a year to realise that they, in fact were innocent of wrongdoing. It may well be that this is not so much Mr. Gramm refusing to "submit" to the board in a disciplinary issue, but rather a pastoral issue in which the board, as fellow-members in the Body, could have chosen to walk beside him through his tragedy. Some in the Body are married to true saints and are blessedly ignorant of the fact that others, no matter how hard they work at their relationships, have spouses who will do as they very well please regardless. I don't see this as too different from the fact that every Sunday very "comfortable" church-goers will tell desperately poor fellow-members, "have a blessed week" with little knowledge of what is coming out of their mouths.

Is it not one and the same as in James, "And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?"

It's curious that Dr. Gramm is more than willing to discuss this with the press, but will not do so with the WC administration. While he is not sharing details with the media, he is willing to pose for photos, give interviews and is sounding increasingly bitter about the situation. However, he knew the rules before his tenure at Wheaton, so how is this Wheaton's issue? It's his decision, his resignation, move on to something more newsworthy.

Several people including Professor Gramm have said that one's personal life is completely unrelated to one's position as an employee. I disagree with that statement for two reasons. First, as a Christian we live out our discipleship in every area of our life regardless of distinctions between the public and private sector. Second and more fundamental, we live out our Christian discipleship in the context of the church and Christian community. Wheaton College, though not necessarily a church, is a Christian community and as such its members covenant to to follow Jesus together. The administration's policies, though by no means perfect or without the need for re-imagining, are for the purpose of encouraging that communal journey in Christ. For Gramm to close himself off from that community through his unwillingness to walk through the path of these policies that he agreed to when he became a professor is a choice to remove himself from community.

Being a Christin means being in community, ministering together, using our gifts and talents for each other's mutual edification, serving the poor and the widow, helping each other live out the gospel and yes, holding each other accountable when we lose sight of that. You are part of the body and what you do 'in private' affects the rest of the body. We are not independent of one another. Prof Gramm had wonderful gifts as a teacher and had a fruitful ministry to the students at Wheaton. Did he lose sight of the Gospel in his personal life and marriage? No one knows, because he won't talk about it with his community. Instead he wants to privatize and individualize his faith. (He wants to keep this to himself, except when it comes to doing interviews for the Tribune and Sun-times. He wants to protect his wife, and yet he insinuates that talking about it would "put me in a position of accusing my spouse.")

I hope at least that he is walking through this journey in his community at church, with close Christian friends, with Pastors and counselors with whom he does feel comfortable being honest and open. The Christian life is a life of community. How do we explain that priority to the press and media of an individualistic country like ours?

This to my humble way of thinking falls under the spiritual rubric of "biblical busybodyness" : taking umbrage at another's personal and private life (usually occurring at the same time when one's own persona and private life leaves much to be desirec). It's the absence of the psychologically sound admonition, "judge not that ye be not judged." The criteria should be, how does this professor, this teacher, this university leader function in his or her relationship to students, faculty, non-academic community members? Does personal or private life intrude? If not, do the truly Christian thing (hard as it may be at times): Mind your own business. Put your own house in order. If need be: look the other way (but heavenward) seven times seven times seven.

I thought that teaching at a school like Wheaton would be considered a ministry rather than just a job!

Robert,
It is true that many in the church are unaware of how a sincere, well-intentioned believer can be a victim in a divorce. I am myself very familiar with this kind of tragedy, and the board of Wheaton seems willing to consider this possibility. Why else were they showing such a desire to ascertain the actual circumstances before making any decisions? As I said previously, they seem to have demonstrated grace and sensitivity.

Just as we cannot assume that Professor Gramm is at fault and in sin, neither can we assume that he bears no guilt in this matter. You seem to be presenting a dichotomy between Gramm submitting to the accountability and potential discipline of the school board and their viewing this as a pastoral issue in which they walk with him through this tragedy as fellow-members of the body of Christ. But why are the two mutually exclusive? Do they not, in fact, go hand in hand. To truly handle this situation pastorally requires accountability and the exercise of discipline where it is necessary. Not only is this appropriate, it is a solemn obligation on their part, not only for the honor of the name of Christ, the integrity of the school, and an example to the faculty and student body, but for the well-being of Kent Gramm. To simply sweep the matter under the rug helps no one and will eventually do harm, not least to Professor Gramm.

I see no evidence in this conflict of the attitude you reference from James. It is not the leaders of Wheaton who have refused to walk with their brother through these circumstances, it is Kent Gramm who has refused to open himself to their care and accountability.

Many good comments above. We should submit to compassionate discussion of our sins and shortcomings. Divorce is not necessarily a sin, but Wheaton needed information to judge that. Discussing one's spouse need not be accusatory or sinful either one. We should be ready, willing, and able to work through these issues. Otherwise, we (Christians) will become like the courts, with one ruling for all, regardless of the circumstances. The issue of divorce and those involved in it deserve better than the status quo from the courts and the churches in most cases.

Dr. Kent Gramm, I honor and respect you in following through on your decision, which says more about Christian ethics to your students, colleagues, the world et al., than all the thousands of rules and regulations that hinder and cripple men and women of God...but do not stop them from advancing Christ's Kingdom. It speaks of your love for God and those who hold value in your life. I pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to lead and guide you in your life, as you allow your ministry to emcompass your occupation, which is one of your callings from God. Please envision the GREAT plans that God has for you, my brother. Please do not focus on friend or foe, but..."fix your eyes on Jesus, [Who is] the author & perfecter of our faith..."(Heb 12:2 NIV) Grace & Peace, msh

Rob Bell's book, Velvet Elvis talks about the relationship between Talmudim and Rabbi, between disciples, note mere students and Teacher. In our western culture, we are almost neo-platonists or Gnostic, with head knowledge a type of higher knowledge. In the first century, the emerging rabbi culture was one where the "the students did life" with their rabbi, not just class. Learning life, not just facts mattered.

Several decades ago, truth was doctrinal, we polarized ourselves by denomination. Today truth is also relational, and we are working together among Christ centered churches. A professor's R.Q. relational quotient then becomes very important. Can they be divorced and be a professor? I Timothy 3 (elders/didaskalos-teachers-Acts 20) puts a heavy emphasis on relationships: What is the person's family life like? Does he get along with his neighbors? However, I Timothy 3 begins with "An elder must BE". He might have been a drunk, now he is sober. He might have had an anger management, "Sons of Thunder" problem, now he has the fruit of the Spirit. Can a divorced person lead? Yes. Yet the relational quotient can't be dismissed as someone's "private life." Talmudim do life with their rabbis, not just class. Our personal life effects our leadership. Just ask King David or President Clinton.

The most important relational quotient though is rooted in a grace-filled Jesus.

I find the tone of most of these comments to be very judgmental. I continue to be puzzled at why certain hot issues get more attention than others. If a professor was an arrogant, self righteous, disrespectful expert in his/her field, would they be fired? That seems far worse to me than a divorce. We all make mistakes and if the stats are correct, divorce among Christians is higher than non-Christians. Are you going to kick students out who are sleeping around or get drunk or smoke pot? Or maybe Wheaton students don't do that. How about lying when they sign a statement that they won't have sex or do drugs and then do it anyway. He who is without sin cast the first stone. Where is grace? Forgiveness? Understanding of our brokenness? This is the kind of behavior that makes me embarrassed to be a Christian.

R.Q? Please! Rob Bell, Rick Warren and all these Emergents are desroying the one true faith...Stop navel-gazing and learn to properly use verbs and nouns. One does not "do" theology or life. You can live your life. You can do any number of things with your life--but you cannot "do" life.

If one is afraid of polarization because of theological doctrine, one must avoid Jesus Christ at all costs. Jesus is the most polarizing figure in history. If these Emergents don't get that, then they are not encountering the True and Living God.

As for Dr. Gramm, I believe he and Wheaton have done the best they can. Divorce is a sinful act (usually shared) that sould be compassionately handled--but handled nonetheless. (I speak from experience. While I resisted my divorce, I was powerless to stop it. I may not have sought it, but my sinful nature contributed to the breakdown of my marriage.)

It is time for both Wheaton and the Gramms to move on, with God's mercy.

Too little is known...a shame for this to be in the secular press. Sorry Dr. Gramm didn't submit to his leaders enough to discuss the issues. Rebellion is a good reason for dismissal.

Even if a person who divorces is totally at fault, Moses granted a divorce because of the stubbornness of a person's heart, and Jesus seems to allow that position. Is Gramm read to confess that (stubborn heart)? If so, I would let him stay provided that he didn't remarry. Then he could introduce himself at the beginning of each school year as a tenured professor in the process of growing to be more like Christ. Otherwise he is just an arrogant academic who is a law unto himself. I'm sure all of us have met plenty of those.

Does Wheaton accept federal monies in any way? If so, would this be a discrimination?

I wish to address the larger picture related to this situation. It is quite easy (& highly unfortunate)to see the liberal commentators here continuing to espouse & hold to the ultimate 'liberal Christian agenda': It does not matter how a Christian lives - live & let live. Do whatever you want, when you want, where you want, with whom you want. Abortion, homosexuality, drug use, etc. - if it feels good, do it. And no one has the right to question my 'Christian-ness', even in light of my behavioral choices.

It would do no good to point out scriptural principles of Biblical morality based on 1 Corinthians, Romans, etc., because these people have long stopped believing in the Bible & its teachings as the inspired Word of God. They will continue to throw the word 'Grace' about like some kind of smoke screen to justify a Christian's right (?!) to engage in any behavior.

These comments are not directed at Kent Gramm, but to the larger picture/problem indicated by many of the comments being made here:
those people claiming to be Christians who teach that disciples of Christ can live however they want & that fellow believers have no right to question/take issue with another believer's "lifestyle choices".

This attitude opens & holds the door wide open for the destruction of the church from within.

Terrance, you said,
"I find the tone of most of these comments to be very judgmental. I continue to be puzzled at why certain hot issues get more attention than others." - Of course, you are assuming that there has never been any discipline of students for violating the codes of conduct. Do you know that this is the only case like this?

Then you said, "If a professor was an arrogant, self righteous, disrespectful expert in his/her field, would they be fired? That seems far worse to me than a divorce." Do you know cases like you described that are ignored and not dealt with? Dr. Gramm left because he chose not to go through the process in place to deal with the issue. That is not exactly the same as being fired.

Then you said, "We all make mistakes and if the stats are correct, divorce among Christians is higher than non-Christians. Are you going to kick students out who are sleeping around or get drunk or smoke pot? Or maybe Wheaton students don't do that. How about lying when they sign a statement that they won't have sex or do drugs and then do it anyway." - So are Christian institutions supposed to abandon all codes of conduct because enforcing them looks harsh to some people?

Then you said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone. Where is grace? Forgiveness? Understanding of our brokenness?" - If I understand the situation correctly the school had an avenue open for him to keep his job. He chose not to take it. If they just turned a blind eye wouldn't they be setting a precedent that none of their conduct codes have any real meaning?

Then you said, "This is the kind of behavior that makes me embarrassed to be a Christian." Really? It seems we are embarrassed when Christian leaders sin and those in authority do nothing and we are embarrassed when Christian leaders fail and those in authority do something.

Why can't we all just let it be. My theological bent says this. Mine says that. Whatever! God is still in control. His right Hand still moves stars, mountains and hearts. Here we are, a bunch of armchair theologians hungry over the next Christian Leader Falling story so we can eat it up and demonstrate how smart we are. Let it go. Examine your own life and decide why this story affects you so deeply that you have to vent it out here. I'm wondering why I'm doing it now. Yes, Robert - I'm a sinner - I can move toward your Wes-Arm holiness, but I am still a sinner - I will sin!

So, did CT do any original reporting for this story? No? Hmmm... wonder why.

I agree with what alumni Cathleen Falsani said about the need to employ grace. A dear friend of mine divorced her husband because of adultery, but she didn't want her children to know that their father had been unfaithful. When her pastor asked the reason for the divorce, she refused to discuss the details. As a result, she was looked down upon and even shunned. This woman showed tremendous grace to her ex-husband, yet the church denied her the same grace. Wheaton is doing the same thing. Aren't we the ones who are supposed to show grace? Wheaton's insistence on knowing the details of a professor's private life does strike me as "biblical busybodiness."

As someone who is in professional ministry I too have gone through the pains of divorce. And, I have had to endure the well meaning Christian friends who were quick to act like Job's friends and were determined that I should confess my sin and that I really was no longer fit for ministry. But you know, people need to learn some compassion and learn how to share grace with others. Going through divorce is never easy. It is painful and it is heartbreaking. Most would never choose it. And, most will go through the hell of doubt, self condemnation and guilt. Let's not be so quick to condemn and think we have to discipline this brother an dothers like him. By the way, I am still in the ministry. Why? Because God forgives and heals our brokenness. Oh, I wish that more Christians would really learn this instead be so condemming. Someday you may have to face divorce.

Julie and Phil, you are both so right! As the Church we have too often accepted this or that detail of "received doctrine" without really questioning and engaging it. Back at the Gitgo Paul exhorted us all to do just that when he wrote, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling:" We need to take it that seriously. Who did what how in this current question is not the issue near so much as the fact, as you have both mentioned, that we need to pay more attention to actually being Jesus to each other than properly executing the Rules. Phil, properly understood "Wes-Arm" Holiness is all about letting the Lord have His way in our lives- not proving how "good" we can be. & Julie, your friend is one brave and righteous lady. My hat's off to her!

Many Christians erroneously divide life into spheres: personal/public, secular/spiritual, etc. Unfortunately, "personal" decisions affect one's "public" life. If a person were an alcoholic, no one would question that his or her behavior would have a negative impact on all other areas. This professor pledged to uphold standards "above reproach" in order to be a positive role model and minister/teach most effectively. He chose not to confidentially share the circumstances surrounding his divorce in an atmosphere of grace. He then publicly proclaimed his situation to the whole world, thereby showing a lack of repentance, integrity, and concern for his ex-wife. Actions have consequences, but this in no way precludes one from pursuing forgiveness, healing, and sanctification. In fact, God's discipline in our lives actually fosters true restoration.

Hypothetical situation:

Jane Doe, a member of your church, is arrested and charged with homicide. She tells you it's a complicated situation and she had a valid reason for shooting the deceased. These things happen, she says, and sometimes murder is the right thing to do, even if it's not pleasant. You might even be in this situation one day. She does not share her reason for killing the victim because, she says, she does not want to disparage anyone. She asks that the church not judge her. She asks that the church show her grace.

What do you do?

When I resigned from the administration of Wheaton College in 1966 I did so because of what I perceived as its extreme conservative and legalistic perspectives in a variety of arenas: political, economic, sociological, theological, and even artistic. I had hoped that the institution had moderated its approach over the past four decades, but judging from its decision to fire Dr.Gramm because of his marital dissolution, it apparently has not.

I read once that the Christian Church is the only organized group making a practice of shooting its wounded. This is an apt example. In my home church when a beloved physician was outed as a closet homosexual back in the '50s, the rejection he incurred from his fellow Christians was so severe that he hanged himself in his basement. If Christian communities cannot offer continued fellowship and healing ministry to folks encountering life's vicissitudes, who can?

Alas, everyone loses from this action: Dr. Gramm, his colleagues, the students, and all of us who believe in grace and forgiveness in the face of brokenness. Jesus weeps again.

Jennifer, your question seems to be going on the assumption that divorce is, at the base, a moral question. It is an ethical question tied to any number of moral issues.

All the same. though, there are times when homicide is justifiable. Protecting the defenseless, etc. At any rate, would it not be the most apparent course to move alongside the woman and help her sort through the issues so that she could deal with them and know how to proceed from that point? After all, "God is not willing that any should perish," so there is the need right off to help her to repent, forgive, etc., as needed to be able to receive the needed assurance in the Lord.

Jennifer, are you looking at the divorce question as a moral issue? From what I can tell, divorce is an ethical question which can be tied to any number of moral considerations.

You pose a question that seems pretty simple (or is that just me?). Yes, in this life there are times when homicide is justifiable or even necessary. Protection of the innocent & defenseless for instance. Would it not be the Church's response to move alongside the woman to help her walk through her conflicts, forgiving and repenting as needed, in order that she be restored & reconciled with the Lord? In prison work one never asks, "What did you do?" It might be OK to ask, "what are you in for?" though I have yet to see it called for. Sometimes you know going in, most of the time it doesn't really matter.

(Apologies for the double posting: The second was written about half an hour after it seemed the first had been lost!)

The facts of this case are fairly straightforward.

The doctor accepts and signs on to a policy regarding divorce. Now that the doctor is getting a divorce he decides not to abide any longer by this policy. No doubt that is the doctor's right. However, once the doctor has taken this postion he cannot, in all fairness, nor can his supporters, claim that he has been "wronged".

Not wanting to discuss ones business with one's employers, and wanting to protect one's spouse is all well and good, but these only serve to negate the college's policy on divorce and effectively tie the hands of its officials, who now cannot be faulted.

If the doctor chooses resignation rather than disclosure that is his choice, but let no one say the college has been mean to him since that is clearly not the case.

But I have two questions for the doctor. How is it that you see the college administrators as "employers" and not also as fellow believers? May not your unwillingness to confide in them be viewed as a trust or integrity issue either on their part or yours?

Were I a cynic, which I am not, I would be tempted to think that the doctor's desire to conceal this matter may be a revelation in itself since after all, the best of men are only men at best.

Maybe I missed the details in the article, but to me part of the answer depends on what the contract says. If there is an explicit code of conduct as part of employment, the college should be able to enforce it.

On the other hand, I am saddened by the church's tendency (in general) to choose certain sins as being bad, worthy of punishment or discipline, and to ignore other sins.

If we ever start truly acknowledging things such as pride and gossip to be sins, then we will all be insisting on the need for grace in every arena!

And just so that I am not misunderstood: in the situation in the article, none of us actually know the details, and none of us know whether the gentleman in question sinned or not. So my usage of the word 'sin' is not implying anything about him, it is taking the discussion to the broader question of how churches or church organizations should discipline the behavior of their members.

When I was a student at Elmhurst College we nursed a healthy rivalry with Wheaton, and were certainly convinced that there was something strange about that place. Once again, we have been proven right.

From these posts it is evident that people so like to be heard or see themselves in print.

The teacher had his opportunity to reconcile the situation with the school but chose not too...very simple...by not doing so, he gave up his opportunity to remain at the school, even though he could have.\

It was HIS personal choice...don't make it more than it is. And, I agree that if the situation could not be discussed within the confines of a Godly friendly atmosphere at the school, it should have never reached the public press...seems like it was mishandled...

Cathleen Falsani is a graduate of Wheaton College?

I was surprised to read that she's actually the religion editor of the Chicago Sun-Times. Her writing leads one to believe she's not born again.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=getting_a_kick_out_of__falwell%e2%80%99s_death&ns=RobertKnight&dt=05/20/2007&page=full&comments=true

Nearby Elmhurst College was a private secular college; Wheaton College was a school for primarily committed born-again believers.

Wheaton College was once a terrific school, with such alumni as Billy Graham and several missionaries to the Auca Indians (the Waodani) who were murdered 51 years ago. The LIFE Magazine photospread on their deaths, and the subsequent testimony of their martyrdom for Christ and Dayuma’s conversion inspired hundreds (I've read thousands) to become missionaries. Many, including one of my parents, came to know Christ from the news of that martyrdom.

Wheaton College can continue to be a top Christian college if it remains true to its heritage and Christ instead of going off course following what's being called the "emergent church," one combining Catholicism and Christianity. And if it inspires the idealistic young to be leaders, not followers of the liberal media. It should consider its close proximity to Moody Bible Institute, and Chicago’s great history of soul-winning revivals by the Lord through Dwight L. Moody and Ira Sankey, and Billy Sunday and Homer Rodeheaver. What a glorious history!

As a Christian who does not believe in divorce but who understands in todays society that divorce due to abuse, adultery, addiction is very often the remedy used, I am perplexed that if, as it appears from this article, that it is the wife who was the wrongdoer, why must the husband be fired?

This is perplexing to me on several levels and, thus, I am compelled to post.
I fully agree with the comments regarding Dr. Gramm's lack of discrection in the public reporting of his divorce. Quite a farce to claim to not want to discuss his private life, but then letting it continue, unchecked, in the public forum.
It is also distressing that all opinions seem to be slanted that he is somehow protecting his spouse by not publicly disclosing the reason/originator of the divorce. The issue has been directed, intentionally or not, to appear that he is the victim and his wife the abuser. How incorrect that assumption actually is.
It is a shame that this man's "honor" is being proclaimed, yet his actions declare otherwise - quite loudly. False accusations, even in inuendo, are being allowed to continue. Shame on us all.

Kim, if the wife committed adultery, then Dr. Gramm would not be fired if he told Wheaton College the reason for his divorce. However, the fact is that Dr. Gramm refused to give the college the reason(s) for his divorce, and so he resigned. He was not fired.

It was NOT his wife who led to the ending of this marriage. He resigned to not have to admit that it was he who walked away from his entire family without provocation, knowing that this would result in his firing.

I think the school should determine the situation based on the employee's conduct,not the spouse's. It is he who is employeed, not the spouse. The current guideline is offesive to the individual privacy.

Having taught at several Christian schools, including a Christian university, I can say with certainty that employees at most Christian institutions are required to sign statements verifying their agreement to abide by certain policies. These statements usually include morals clauses as well as spiritual clauses.

Many Christians believe that the Bible gives only one acceptable reason for divorce: infidelity. It goes on to say that the marriage can continue if the wronged spouse and the unfaithful one are willing to stay together.

Christian schools have a very heavy responsibility to the students they are training as well as to parents to maintain a staff that is above reproach. Otherwise, how can they set a proper example for the students?

It would be extremely irresponsible for a Christian institution to have a person on staff who is of questionable reputation. This professor knew when he joined the staff that he would be held accountable for his actions. Whether he or his wife is the guilty party, there can be no cloud over his reputation.

Having defended Wheaton's position in the above situation, I must point out that this Christian college has already capitulated to the world in many other areas. When Christian schools have little distinction from state schools, there is little reason for students to choose them - apart from academics.