Until recently, volleyball coach and science teacher Cathy Samford taught at a Christian academy in Rockwall, Texas, where she had been employed for three years. One year she was chosen coach of the year.
Jim White
|
But when the 29-year-old single woman revealed that she was pregnant, the accolades ceased. So did her employment—leaving her without income and minus medical coverage for her and her soon-to-be-born baby. Samford cannot understand how they could do this to her. “We all have our different views and interpretations,” she said. “It’s not necessarily the Christian thing to do to throw somebody aside because of those.” She says she “was shocked” by the school’s decision saying she and her boyfriend planned to get married, but that something had interfered with their plans. She said they would go ahead and get married if that would help.
The school, on the other hand, believes teachers have an obligation to conduct themselves by the moral code of the institution—not to mention the Bible. School headmaster Ron Taylor says that part of Samford’s responsibility was to be a role model for students and he cites a morals clause in her contract with the school.
Most of us would feel a sense of compassion toward the woman and her unborn baby, but shouldn’t she have anticipated that her behavior might have consequences? After all, school officials are trying to reinforce a specific biblical worldview. For her part, Samford has indicated no remorse for being sexually active prior to marriage and sees no real inconsistency in the mixed-message presented by an unmarried pregnant teacher.
What concerns me even more than the behavior is the attitude.
And speaking of that, in a recent radio broadcast Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke on racial overtones behind the Trayvon Martin case. The Associated Press reported, “On his weekly radio show recently, Richard Land claimed President Barack Obama, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton had shamefully exploited the case to stir up racial resentment in an attempt to turn out black voters for the presidential election.” He referred to Jackson and Sharpton as “race hustlers.”
As it turns out, not only were his words shameful, they were plagiarized. As he spoke, a Baylor University doctoral student, noting what he thought was unusual word choices, decided to Google Land’s words. Low and behold, they weren’t Land’s words at all.
Giving credit to neither the Washington Times nor to author Jeffrey Kuhner, Land quoted vertabim from an editorial. Within days backlashes developed both from his intellectual thievery and the explosive nature of the words. Still, Land defended what he had said.
As pressure mounted, Land issued an apology of sorts. He said that he apologized for any hurt or misunderstanding his comments generated, then added, “Clearly, I overestimated the progress that has been made in slaying the ugly racist ghosts of the past in our history. I also clearly underestimated the extent to which we must go out of our way not to be misunderstood when we speak to issues where race is a factor.” How’s that for an unapology?
The board of trustees of the ERLC announced an investigation and Land was asked to meet with leaders of the SBC both white and black, including Fred Luter who will be nominated to serve as the convention’s first African-American president at the annual meeting just days from now. After a five-hour meeting, Land again “apologized.” Black SBC leaders say they have accepted it.
Land reports that he has sent letters of apology to the national black leaders he offended.
Steve Faith, chairman of the ERLC trustees investigating charges of plagiarism, announced that he would present a report on the board’s investigation, then in a surprise move on May 24, suddenly announced his resignation from the board. Faith has not commented, but his replacement, Richard Piles, an Arkansas pastor, says that Faith needed to devote more time to his church which is without a pastor. What? Are we to believe that the needs of the church were so extreme as to demand his immediate departure from the board before he could make his report in 10 days?
Piles will report the findings of the board’s investigation on June 1, but his comments to Nashville’s newspaper, The Tennessean, may provide a glimpse of what to expect. “I am a fan of Dr. Land,” he said. “I am in his corner through this process and want to see him succeed and hope that he can continue in his ministry.”
In these two cases we observe parallels and contrasts. Samford is guilty as sin, we might say. For that matter, so is Land. That’s a parallel.
In Samford’s case, school officials are trying to reinforce a specific biblical worldview. In Land’s case the parallel is close. He is trying to enforce a bliblical worldview—on everybody else. For her part, Samford has indicated no remorse for being sexually active prior to marriage and sees no real inconsistency in the mixed-message presented by an unmarried pregnant teacher. Land’s apologies were forced and he, too, apparently sees no inconsistency in the mixed messages sent when the guy in charge of ethics for the SBC plagiarizes his material and proceeds to make shocking racial comments.
Now the contrasts: Her employer, recognizing her status as a role model, fired her. The ERLC board, on the other hand, appears ready to ignore any need on Land’s part to model integrity. Never mind that he is the president of the commission in the SBC dealing with ethics! Stealing someone else’s words is a serious offense. A student in a military academy would be kicked out of school for such an offense. But the SBC leadership must not expect its chief ethicist to measure up to West Point’s standards!
Land’s presidency has at times been characterized by arrogance, impulsiveness and lack of integrity. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I would like to hear his thoughts about a teacher in a private Christian school who gets pregnant out of wedlock!
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.