GODSTUFF

CRINGEWORTHY: WHEATON’S STANCE ON PROFESSOR’S DIVORCE

Sigh.

It would be so refreshing to pick up the newspaper and see a story about my alma mater on the front page that didn’t make me cringe.

There are many great things going on at Wheaton College all the time. For instance, a senior and defensive end on the Thunder football team, Andy Studebaker, on Sunday became the first Wheaton player ever taken in the NFL draft. He’s heading to the Philadelphia Eagles.

But the story that made Monday’s front page was about Kent Gramm, a professor for 20 years in Wheaton’s English department, who has lost his job because his 30-year marriage is ending in divorce.

More specifically, Gramm resigned (rather than be fired) after he declined to discuss the details of his divorce with Wheaton administration. While divorce is not automatic grounds for dismissal, school policy requires the divorce to fall within acceptable parameters, based on Scripture, i.e., adultery, abandonment and the like.

While Wheaton is certainly within its legal rights to insist on such a requirement, and while trying to hold fast the institution’s moral rudder in increasingly relativistic cultural waters is honorable, I still find myself profoundly disappointed by the school’s position in this case.

Gramm, who entered the Wheaton community in 1988, the same year I did as a college freshman, knew full well what his refusal to discuss the particulars of his divorce would mean to his career at the evangelical liberal arts college. He faced an unreasonable and painful choice and I believe he took the spiritual high road. I wish I could say the same for my alma mater.

I don’t know what the prurient details — if there are any — of Gramm’s divorce are, and frankly, I couldn’t care less. What I do care about is that once again an evangelical Christian institution earns a reputation, deserved or not, for siding with legalism over grace. And for an institution dedicated, as Wheaton is, to “Christ and his kingdom,” communicating grace in a world that so desperately needs it should always be the most important part of its mission.

I’ve heard from many fellow Wheaton alumni who read Monday’s story about Gramm and expressed their heartfelt disappointment and even anger with our community.

Because Wheaton, like so many religious communities, tends to get painted with a broad brush as if there is only one mind and one interpretation there of what it means to live a faithful life, I thought it might be helpful to hear some of their voices.

“Sending the message that if you go through something that ends in divorce it follows that you are then separated from your community is horrible,” said a classmate whose parents have been married for almost 40 years, grandparents (including her Baptist preacher grandfather) were married for 57, and who has been happily married herself for a decade. “In my mind, an ideal Wheaton would surround Dr. Gramm and his wife — treat it like a death in the family or someone who is just diagnosed with cancer. You bring food, you offer to baby-sit the kids, you get them a gift card to Target — you don’t fire the guy.”

One of my roommates from Wheaton who, after more than a decade of marriage and two kids, is going through a divorce herself (one that would fall within Wheaton’s “acceptable parameters”), had this to say: “I went to a meditation retreat where we were really challenged to look at ourselves and our pain without our ‘story.’ That was extremely difficult for me — I have quite a story. I’m a saint in my story! But if I let go of that story, what am I? Just some woman with a marriage that didn’t work. Dr. Gramm is showing such grace and courage not to tell the story. It is none of our business.”

Another classmate said Wheaton’s rules about divorce are appropriate as it was obviously something Jesus was concerned enough about to mention several times during his ministry. “As with most issues related to gender and sexuality, the church has and continues to struggle to find a sustainable balance between encouraging holiness and demonstrating grace,” he said. “Nonetheless, I will say that in my experience of Wheaton, the law seemed to have primacy over grace, and rules over authentic community.”

Marriage is a sacred compact and divorce is always a tragedy. But will effectively ostracizing and stigmatizing someone make marriage any more sacred and divorce any less tragic?

Late in the day Monday, I heard from Gramm directly. Far from painting himself as a martyr or victim, the professor was reflective and faithful.

I’ll leave you with his words:

“An authoritarian, narrow and self-righteous attitude shown by an institution does not teach students about the boundary-free geography of the kingdom of God,” he said. “I would like the wonderful students of Wheaton College to know that God is not going to fire them for anything.”

Amen.

——————————–

AN ADDENDUM: ALUMNI VOICES

There’s been a lively exchange among some Wheaton alumni on Facebook about the Gramm issue. Here are some of the voices I’ve heard from in recent days.GG

***
Upon reading the SunTimes article Dr. Gramm sounds very grounded and healthy. Evangelicals have not historically modeled healthy boundaries and here we have man choosing health and authenticty over the institutuion.

I believe Wheaton will have to continue to sincerely look at it’s archaic policies and ideologiees to be relevant to today’s world. There is a way to do this without the white-knuckling and without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (throwing the professor out with the “D” word)

The real crisis for Wheaton is that they continue to alienate and throw out those who can help them do this.

***
Blah. What a mess. I think divorce is the most awful thing that can ever happen. I say this even though my own would fit into the “acceptable parameters.” I’ve gotten the Wheaton reaction from some family members. I imagine their compassion would change if the parameters were different. It’s a shame because the pain is still overwhelming, no matter the blame.

I went to a meditation retreat where we were really challenged to look at ourselves and our pain without our “story.” This was extremely difficult for me–I have quite the story. I’m a saint in my story!! But if I let go of that story, what am I? Just some woman with a marriage that didn’t work. Dr. Gramm is showing such grace and courage to not tell the story. It is none of our business and he opens himself up to much speculation. It undermines what little self-esteem is left after a divorce. But to let go of his story, even as one builds around him in the aftermath, shows a depth of character that many won’t understand.

I hope the college officials will let go of their “right to review the causes of divorce.” It’s just ugly.

***
When you are in the throes of your own mess (we are all victims/we are all victimizers) it’s hard to be objective. So I’m not. This story is a broad one being played out in a fishbowl at WC. The Evangelical world still seems to be lubricated best when she can have the organizing principle of “heroes and villians”. It’s much easier to throw stones than to stand in front of the pelting missives of the fearful–especially on behalf of people who have little distinction in your life except they are sisters and brothers in Christ. That’s supposed to mean something. The systemic issues and culture at WC is fundamentally unchanged from the days I called the spire on the Billy Graham Center the largest falic sympol in Illinois. 🙂 Issues and incidents “shake the place”. That’s good. We just need (I just need) to make sure that mercy abounds. That would be a good “required course”. My wandering diatribe….

***
Personally, I don’t identify as a conservative evangelical (or either part of that moniker), but I’ve spent enough time around people who do to wonder if those making the decision to force Dr. Gramm to “talk…or else” in part want to control a situation that is out of their control. They likely fear that making this exception and not firing him (even if they know this man’s character, have a long history with him, know that he is a valuable faculty member, might even know details that free him from “guilt” in this situation, etc.) will kick at something foundational, something they fear will crumble if they are more tolerant and/or progressive. Is it tradition? Biblical authority? I don’t know. Maybe they know deep down that that “thing” is already crumbling and this makes them all the more fearful.
This kind of thing feels less like faith in a living God and more like hollow fearand a desire to be in control. But that’s just me. All this is one of the reasons I’m grateful to be in a progressive church. All are welcome and there isn’t an air of fear, but an attitude of grace and desire for a continuing conversation with God and each other. “Enter the Great Conversation” is all over my Episcopal church. We don’t fear that God is offended or limited by one person’s divorce or anyone’s questions or doubts. Look at David, we say, any doubt or question or worry or pain or anger we have has already been articulated in his psalms – by this fallible man whom God adored. Okay, so some disjointed thoughts for you as my daughter and I make trees out of construction paper.
Good luck on the column – I look forward to reading it.

***
Personally, I am grieved that my alma mater is behaving this way. Dr. Gramm is behaving appropriately by choosing to keep his personal life, personal. Frankly, I’m sick of Wheaton ‘shooting their own wounded.’ Wheaton seems to have a list of policies about what students and faculty can’t do without taking into consideration that it is valuable to teach students how to live in this world with real life issues. It would be valuable for students to see that someone can transcend the pain that comes from divorce.

I could go on, but really what I’m thinking is this:

1) I don’t know of any other business in this country that would get away with discriminating the way Wheaton is discriminating against Dr. Gramm. Most businesses and institutions would find themselves amidst an enormous labor and employment law suit!

2) I feel less inclined to believe that Wheaton’s policies are there to care for the spiritual growth of the souls that attend and more inclined to believe that Wheaton has these rediculous policies in order to ensure financial donations. What would they do without certain individuals and organizations (with extremely conservative and judgemntal perspectives)donating money?

As a former Wheatonite, I am sick and tired of Wheaton’s pragmatic decisions defined inappropriately by spirituality and Christian values. If they are teaching anything to the students in this situation, it is that a person will be abandoned by the spiritual organizations that formerly supported them if they don’t ‘appear’ to be perfect or air their personal decisions for another organization to judge it’s appropriateness.

That’s my two cents! Thanks so much! What a difficult situation!

***
We have to believe that divorce was an issue of concern to Jesus, as he mentioned it several times during his earthly ministry. As with most issues related to gender and sexuality, the church has and continues to struggle to find a sustainable balance between encouraging holiness and demonstrating grace.

Clearly the situation has more complexity and nuance then one brief article can convey (or post here can address). While it does appear that the college’s approach is heavy-handed and boorish, the article does say that divorce is not an automatic ground for dismissal.

It is certainly Dr. Gramm’s prerogative to keep his personal life personal, but it seems the requirement for disclosure is not prurient, but an attempt to understand the specifics of the situation as they relate to Christ’s instructions regarding divorce.

All divorced people, regardless of the situation or fault, are God’s children and equal heirs to the kingdom. They should be treated (as we all should) with love and grace. However, the modern church’s casual acceptance of divorce is not without consequence. Can we be salt and light, when we as a group appear to be no more bound by the sacred covenant of marriage then those outside the Body of Christ?

Nonetheless, I will say that in my experience of Wheaton the law seemed to have primacy over grace, and rules over authentic community. While that may have changed, the handling of this situation seems to suggest that if so, not much.

***
This is a sad occurrence. Since my input was requested I will say that there are several issues here and this has to be looked at from at least two perspectives. One is from a personal view as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and the other is from the perspective of managing policy and procedures for an organization that is quite large and has specific goals.

Personally, I really enjoyed Dr Gramm’s classes… he was rather new to Wheaton when I had him and I enjoyed my classes with him. I have no other insights into his nature other than he had a great love of the American Civil War era and knew far more than I about the times. He seemed and seems to be a very mature and thoughtful individual. That maturity and aplomb under the pressure of this painful circumstance doesn’t mitigate the pain he must feel and that we all should feel with him. He (they) need our prayers. He should not be looked at as any more a sinner than any of us… but …..

When setting and managing policy in a large organization, you have to balance between “the rule” and “the intent”. Wheaton’s intent is to try to foster a Christian community. What that intent should look like is a debate I won’t engage in, but I generally support the intent of the pledge, even back in the day when I was there… (cause face it folks, if you can’t give up your drinking, smoking or dancing vice for 4 months at a time, then maybe you should never do it? and in that statement, I am just sticking to the gray areas, not the obvious things that are clearly in violation of God’s plan for our happiness) So, for faculty, you have also a set of rules that policy makers have in place to assist in fostering a christian community, and they sign up to go with this as part of the contract. I mean, no one is holding a gun to anyone’s head to make them sign. He knew that the violation of the conditions could put him out of a job, and he and she bravely took the risk and went with it anyway. Now that the college has made a decision he is acting as a man of honor and accepting the decision of the other party in their contract. It is as simple as that. There is no evil empire, here. The college may have policy you don’t like, but I would ask, what would you do to foster a Christian community WITH POLICY FOR A LARGE ORGANIZATION.

Looking at the policy issue through our personal relationship contact lenses makes for a seemingly simple problem. But it is not.

I am impressed by Dr. Gramm and his handling if the situation. I believe it is possible to affect lives and further God’s kingdom, even if you are in the wreckage of broken relationship, and even if you have been asked to leave your job. No one knows what the future holds and if it doesn’t go the way you want it doesn’t mean it has gone the wrong way.

Peace,

****
Reply to the Post immediately above:
The great thing about the military is that it offers simple answers to the complicated questions of life, similar to Wheaton. That is a great organizing principal if the objective is order (which it largely is in the military). I think that Wheaton was/is supposed to be about something a lot bigger than order, it is supposed to be about Christian community.

When I was raising our dog (female lab), I was really into the hardcore obedience thing. My vet suggested that I think about the relationship that I wanted with my animal (okay, I know this is a softball pitch for obnoxious fuiking comments from the peanut gallery) and to train it accordingly. Since we didn’t really want or need a guard dog or shepherd for sheep, we opted to have your classic, lazy, goofy lab that is lax in discipline but high in fun and love.

Contracts are designed to reflect a relationship, not create it. When the relationships change, the contract needs to change too, if the goal is realistic community. It seems that given our society, firing or excommunicating or cutting out members of the body over divorce leaves us all short on options.

When I was at Wheaton, I would have preferred a great professor who was divorced over a mediocre professor or a good professor who really should get divorced. I don’t think Prof Gramm offers marriage counseling, so I don’t understand how firing him improves the Christian community at Wheaton.

Last question: Does Wheaton accept checks from divorced alumni?

***
Seems like a shame — Christians are better than most at shooting their wounded and throwing the first stones.

The “if you don’t like the pledge/contract/whatever, then don’t go there” argument seems weak. It’s strictly legalistic, zero heart-of-the-law element to the answer. Most people aren’t thinking about divorce when they sign their contracts for job tenure. I’m sure it was the last thing on Prof. Gramm’s mind. The real question is: does the policy make for better education and community at Wheaton? In the case of Prof Gramm, it does not seem to enhance anything by having him leave.

I wish Wheaton would focus on delivering the best Christian education it can and get over the minutae. The administration is picking up peanuts while the elephant stomps it to death — like searching for nutrient in the guano of life.

Might be good to rehash the medieval philosophy prof who converted to Catholicism and had to leave too. Wtf!?! You almost have to be a Roman to teach medieval catholicism.

***
I replied to Falsani offline yesterday, but I have to say after reading everyone’s responses – no matter what this makes me feel about Wheaton and its administration, I’m glad I went there to learn with you smart, reflective people and be taught by professors of integrity like Dr. Gramm. Thanks for having the conversation Cath.

***
first, anger. then, sadness.

***
My comment is too long, so I’m dividing it into sections.

First of all, I’m sad that this is happening at all, most of all for Dr. Gramm and his ex-wife. Divorce is a painful experience for everyone involved, and I don’t think any thinking person decides to begin divorce proceedings without realizing that. Furthermore, the decision to divorce is normally based on a great deal of prior pain, such that the decision to divorce is often intended as a step towards less pain and dischord, even though it’s the first thing that most others know about that pain. Also, all this pain can make good decision-making very difficult for everyone involved. Not impossible, necessarily, but certainly more difficult than it would be otherwise.

Second, it seems like the spirit of the rule requiring faculty to disclose the basis of any divorce is grounded in the idea that Wheaton wants to ensure the kinds of models faculty are setting for students are good ones. Hence, they want to know the reasons for the divorce to ensure there is a justifiable reason, and not one where the faculty member’s character flaw(s) are the reason behind the divorce. Stan Jones, in one of the articles, suggests that the only two unacceptable bases for divorce are desertion or adultery. At surface level, this seems like a good guide. Furthermore, the way Jones talks about managing situations like these seems very open and sensitive to individual needs. Makes sense, given that his training is as a Christian therapist.

What I don’t understand about the situation, and which is highlighted in the “Inside Higher Ed” article is that Gramm doesn’t feel like the rule is valid because “when a person goes through something like this, getting cut off from their community does not seem like good Christian behavior.” I think I agree with that, but we have to ask the question – who is doing the initial “cutting off”? The rule was there when he was hired, as he admits. And he expresses that he has received a compassionate response from the administration. So why is there no way for him to treat the school’s administration as part of his community, share the truth of what is happening, and trust that they will help him through?

In short, I fear that without being willing to share the truth with his colleagues (i.e. his Christian community, or at least his employers), he is the one cutting himself off, not the other way round. But it is this confusion of roles between brothers and sisters in Christ, and employees and employers, that is ultimately the tangle at the heart of the problem. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, but that’s the best that I can see from my standpoint.

***
It seems Dr. Gramm is at peace with this. As a non-Wheatonian, I can’t speak to the college’s policy, but if he chooses to not discuss it, then he has made his decision. I would imagine if he truly wanted to keep his job but was concerned about spreading necessary information further than necessary, a confidential council could be arranged. However, he has accepted this (as I imagine he’s had quite a while to contemplate the ramifications of his actions – I agree with Dave Scott’s comment about divorce being the first thing “outsiders” see of a long ordeal), and seems ready to move on.
And while I cannot beleve that it is God’s will for this marriage to end (I believe God wills that every damaged marriage would be repaired) I CAN imagine that, through His grace, Dr. Gramm and his ex-wife will both be able to continue to minister to others and be valuable witnesses to that very grace.

God bless – I’ll be praying for the community – the Enemy would love to attack and take advantage of this opportunity for hurt – through any corridor possible.

***
I think it’s terribly sad. Not sure if the rule to even forbid divorce or face termination is even a fair.

***
[When] I saw the story about Kent Gramm yesterday and just wanted to die. Ironically, I was pigging out on stories about Andy Studebaker and had emailed one of the stories to XXX and XXX (Class of ’93), and XXX emailed the story about Gramm back to us. It’s just so depressing . . . to save his job he would be required to dissect the underside of a 30-year relationship in front of professional colleagues who will NEVER look at him the same way no matter who is “at fault.” (And, really, after a 30-year marriage is there any such thing as one spouse being “at fault”?) I couldn’t handle that level of judgment . . . and I’m a litigator.

Well, I am glad you wrote the column you did. If nothing else, it at least reveals that the Wheaton community is more complex than the caricature that periodically graces the pages of the papers (Ice Cream Socialist, anyone?).

***
Thanks for posting Cathi – I am so deeply disappointed that the college made this decision.

***
Thanks for sharing this! While divorce is a very complex issue, (and not being a Wheaton Alum) it is very honorable that the institution is upholding high written standards for those in authority. I would hope that Professor Gramm be given a generous transition plan that eases this tragic life event.

Perhaps his situation will ignite a dialog around question “Why are there so many Divorces?” and “What’s the effect on biblically based organizations lead by peoples who have not survived the trials of a committed and enduring married relationship?”

I’ve lived in the context of the latter…it’s not pretty..while it does affirm those who have experienced divorce…it can have a non-trivial impact on the lives of those within the organization.

We live in a world of rapid career shifts and changes, perhaps our Lord is moving Professor Gramm into a new role of effectiveness within the Kingdom as the world watches his response to what may appear to be injustice.

***
A very intriguing position. As a former Wheaton student, and one who did not obey the pledge, I see the campus as having a long tradition of those who do not abide by its rules. It seems the campus needs a sort of healing and correction on the whole “rule” thing.

I don’t think the answer is necessarily a relaxation of the rules, or a tightening of them. The solutions are difficult, but I think open honesty and trust by faculty, staff and administration are essential – no matter what the rules.

***
Don’t know why I need to express myself here. But I’ll say that any discussion about Jesus of Nazareth where love is not at the center is not a discussion about Jesus of Nazareth.

I know Dr. Gramm will be truly free to express his gifts once he arrives at his new post, wherever that might be.

How intelligence and creativity blossom and survive at Wheaton, I’ll never understand. Grace, I suppose.