A progressive foundation has granted $643,401 to Baylor University to study “the disenfranchisement and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals and women” in the church. The grantees hope their work will “nurture institutional courage and foster change,” according to the June 30 press release.
The funding comes from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, a private progressive faith-based nonprofit headquartered in Texas. The foundation explicitly prioritizes funding for progressive Baptist organizations, social justice advocacy and inclusivity initiatives.
The Center for Church & Community Impact (C3I) within Baylor’s school of social work will receive the funds and conduct the research. Using this grant, C3I researchers will interview a group of 50 university students and use the results to inform training resources for congregations. The study aims to have congregations take “concrete steps toward genuine inclusion” of LGBTQ+ people.
Baylor University’s C3I has previously received similar grants and has already produced LGBTQ+ resources for churches and social workers—including a “LGBTQ+ Discernment Guide.” In 2024, another C3I project funded by the Baugh Foundation sought to educate congregations in trauma care and LGBTQ+ discernment.
C3I director and Baylor professor Dr. Gaynor Yancey has a history of nudging students and churches towards LGBTQ+ affirmation. In a 2017 academic article geared towards advising Christian social workers, Yancey noted that “It is possible to provide affirmative practice, even if the social worker has religious views that do not support homosexuality.”
In the same article, Yancey asserted that social workers should follow the principle that, “As a fallible being myself, I have no right to pass moral judgments on others.” She later suggested that Christian social workers give their LGBTQ+ clients latitude out of “cultural humility.”
Yancey’s 2020 article funded by the Baugh Foundation chronicled methods for churches to have conversations about LGBTQ+ discernment—with the lion’s share of the anecdotes coming from formerly “traditionalist” writers who embraced an LGBTQ+-affirming position.
As a prominent Baptist institution, Baylor University’s openness to LGBTQ+ affirmation sparks mixed reactions.
In Baylor’s press release, Dr. Jon Singletary, dean of the Garland School of Social Work, welcomed the grant. He hoped the grant would inspire churches to become “more just and welcoming communities.”
Meanwhile, the polemical Christian news site Protestia accused the recent grant of compromising Baylor’s Christian values. “The game is nearly up,” the Protestia article warned. The article pointed out the Baptist university’s previous friendliness towards LGBTQ+ causes, including allowing the first pro-LGBTQ+ student organization on campus.
Baylor University is associated with but not controlled by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Texas Baptists affirm the historic Christian view that homosexuality and transgenderism are sins. The university is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Comment by Wilson R on July 3, 2025 at 12:26 pm
Hi Caitlyn:
Thank you for sharing this. I was not aware of it, and I will pass this along to Baylor friends. (Full disclosure: I am a Baylor grad from back in the day when “progressive” meant favoring the removal of the ban against on-campus dancing. It was still verboten when I graduated.)
I knew John Baugh by reputation and knew one of his daughters, Babs. Mr. Baugh was a large and longtime Baylor donor. I would not have thought of them as liberal crusaders, although this grant clearly states that its purpose is to foster change. Back during the divisive presidency of Robert Sloan, Mr. Baugh pulled back his donations, but it was because of concerns about Sloan’s authoritarian style and not because of liberal/conservative theology (Sloan, a Baptist preacher and seminary professor, was regarded as a moderate in Baptist circles.)
I am frankly surprised that Baylor accepted this grant. While the president, Linda Livingstone, is regarded as more liberal than her recent predecessors (suspiciously so by conservatives), it also seems to me (from a distance, admittedly) that she has tried to walk a fairly careful line. For example, Baylor was very tentative in offering recognition to LGBTQ groups on campus, and I think the school obtained a Title IX exemption that means homosexuality is not protected at BU. And doesn’t their office statement on “human sexuality” still discourage students from being part of groups that don’t conform to a “biblical understanding” of sexuality? So far as I know, Baylor is not regarded as a friendly environment for LGBTQ people.
That’s why I am a bit surprised they took such an openly public step of accepting this grant. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Baylor’s presidents resisted the efforts of fundamentalists to take over and remake the school, as they were doing with Baptist boards, agencies, and seminaries across the country. But they also didn’t do anything to openly or needlessly antagonize the fundamentalists. So, accepting this grant seems like a change in tack.
I wonder if there will be a lot of pressure for the school to give back the grant money. I would expect it.
Comment by Philip on July 3, 2025 at 2:18 pm
I don’t believe there will come a day in my lifetime in which all churches and Christians fully welcome and embrace LGBTQ persons and their relationships, but I do know there will not be a time again in which all churches and Christians universally exclude them. Years ago I said on here that those opposed to homosexuality have a choice to make on whether they can still be in fellowship with Christians who do not share their views. It appears many have decided they cannot.
Comment by Mike on July 3, 2025 at 8:18 pm
Phillip:
Your statement ” those opposed to homosexuality have a choice to make on whether they can still be in fellowship with Christians who do not share their views” shows your naivete concerning what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality. It is called an abomination in the Old Testament, to be punished by stoning, and the New Testament makes it clear that God has not changed his mind. There cannot be a meeting of the minds on this issue for those of us who take the Bible literally, which is the only way it should be taken.
Comment by Douglas E Ehrhardt on July 3, 2025 at 9:08 pm
If you can find it , Health Hazards of Homosexuality by Mass Resistance will open your eyes to the destruction of the body that goes with the sexual practices that are part of the lifestyle. Then there’s the addictive nature of the relationships. Unfortunately the media and just about every other influencer in the country are controlled by the powerful wealthy groups promoting this destructive lifestyle. If you can find people that broke free from the addiction and listen to their stories you may not be so much on the pride bandwagon.
Comment by Philip on July 4, 2025 at 10:38 am
Mike,
Many things are called an abomination in the Old Testament, including unclean animals. The English translation doesn’t convey the same meaning as the Hebrew. And no one takes the Bible completely literally. If you did, you wouldn’t believe in not only evolution, but the heliocentric theory or photosynthesis. You’d also have a hard time explaining how Jesus rode into Jerusalem on both a donkey and colt at the same time. Or how he was born both in both 4 BC and 6 AD (Herod the Great was king and Quinrinius governor of Syria at different times).
Comment by Mike on July 4, 2025 at 11:10 am
Phillip,
I don’t believe in evolution-There exists no evidence to prove it, and much that disproves it. But, to stay on the subject, homosexuality is condemned in the first chapter of Romans, and doubly condemned in I Cor. 6 in that those who practice such will not inherit the kingdom of God. No genuine Christian can argue with these references, and if you do, then I have the right to say that, at the least, you are not a mature Christian, and possible an apostate.
Comment by Philip on July 4, 2025 at 12:20 pm
Mike,
It would seem that your definition of a mature Christian is one who accepts his own casual reading of scripture as automatic doctrine without regard for context. The Greek word in 1 Cor 6 that you assume to refer to homosexual is arsenokoitai. It can literally be translated as “male bed/lying”, but appears nowhere else in antiquity to refer to homosexuals, so we can’t be sure who Paul is referring to here. As for Romans, Paul’s intention in the letter, which I suggest you read more carefully in its entirety, is to restore unity to a church deeply divided between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Paul uses the practice of homosexuality, which is prohibited in Judaism, but slightly more common and acceptable in Gentile society to draw a distinction between the two. He is setting up his Jewish Christian listeners by agreeing with what they have already said on the matter by linking the practice to idolatry and how it reflects poorly on Gentiles. But then in Book 2 Paul abruptly switches gears and addresses his judgemental and proud Jewish Christian audience with “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” Regardless how you choose to interpret Paul’s words in Chapter 1 whether as a rhetorical exercise or as sound doctrine on matters of sex, you can’t argue with the larger intent of the letter which is to restore unity to a divided community and to challenge a high and mighty legalist bunch on their own claims of moral superiority. I think any pastor or theologian who uses Romans 1 to condemn churches to accept homosexuals, without any reference to Romans 2 is guilty of the same sin of self-righteousness as the people Paul addresses.
Comment by Mike on July 4, 2025 at 2:02 pm
Phillip,
I will not argue with you any further. If you are willing to twist Scripture like that. it is useless.
” the larger intent of the letter which is to restore unity to a divided community ” Where did you get such an idea? Paul was writing to a church to which he had never visited. He was writing a general theology letter, not addressing particular church issues. Romans 2 is a continuation of Romans 1. specifically addressing the idea that Jews were special, not needing the same salvation by grace as everyone else.
Keep your liberal ideas to yourself.
Comment by Skipper on July 4, 2025 at 3:02 pm
Phillip, the Bible is so very clear that this is destructive. As Miles McPherson said, “If you want a good relationship with God, obey the rules. If you don’t want a good relationship with God, don’t worry about the rules.”
Comment by Philip on July 4, 2025 at 4:06 pm
Mike,
Kudos on the “subtlety” with which you’ve managed to simultaneously attack my interpretation of Romans with one breath while affirming it with the next.
Comment by Mike on July 5, 2025 at 8:56 am
Phillip,
I did no such thing. Take your tinted glasses off.
Get back to the original issue, which is the subject of homosexuality. There, you lose.
Comment by Philip on July 5, 2025 at 9:30 am
Mike,
I said Paul was addressing divisions between Jewish and Gentile Christians who are separated by first people’s prior exposure to the law and how that has made them look down on their Gentile fellow believers who never had the law. A common theme throughout several of Paul’s epistles. You claimed I was wrong, but then state more or less the same point here. “Romans 2 is a continuation of Romans 1. specifically addressing the idea that Jews were special, not needing the same salvation by grace as everyone else.”
Comment by Different Steve on July 5, 2025 at 9:38 am
ChatGPT responds to Philip’s longest post:
Your argument raises some important points about context and Paul’s broader rhetorical intentions, particularly in Romans. However, a fuller view of the scriptural and historical data offers a stronger case that Paul did mean to include homosexual behavior in his moral teachings—and not merely as a rhetorical trap for legalistic Jews.
1. Arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9
You’re right that arsenokoitai is a rare word. However, its construction—arsen (male) + koitē (bed, implying sexual relations)—strongly suggests male-male sexual behavior. While it’s true that the word doesn’t appear frequently in other ancient Greek literature, that doesn’t make its meaning unclear. It’s widely understood by scholars that Paul likely coined the term by drawing directly from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (Septuagint), which prohibit a man “lying with a male as with a woman.”
So although arsenokoitai may not have been common in secular Greek, it was recognizable to those familiar with Jewish moral teaching, and especially so in light of Leviticus. Major lexicons and conservative as well as moderate scholars (e.g., BDAG, Fee, Gagnon) support this reading.
2. Romans 1 and the Context of Unity
Yes, Romans is about unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and Paul does set up his readers in Chapter 1 only to turn the tables in Chapter 2. But that doesn’t negate the reality of the behaviors he describes as wrong. Paul’s rhetorical shift doesn’t mean what he lists in Romans 1 isn’t sin—it means no one is exempt. Both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of sin.
Moreover, the description of same-sex acts in Romans 1:26–27 is unusually detailed and gender-inclusive. Paul calls the behaviors “shameful,” “unnatural” (para physin), and says they result from turning away from the Creator. The language is moral, not just cultural. His argument isn’t simply about tribal markers between Jews and Gentiles; it’s theological—about humanity’s rebellion and distortion of creation.
3. Romans 2 and Judgment
Romans 2 rightly warns against self-righteousness, but it doesn’t excuse sin—it emphasizes that everyone is under judgment and needs grace. So, while a Christian must be humble and avoid hypocrisy, that doesn’t require moral silence. Calling something sinful, if Scripture clearly teaches it is, isn’t necessarily self-righteousness. It becomes self-righteous only if it’s done without love, without self-examination, or with a sense of superiority rather than a shared need for God’s mercy.
4. The Broader Biblical Witness
The Bible consistently presents sexual ethics within a particular framework—sexual relations are affirmed within male-female marriage and proscribed outside it, including in same-sex behavior. This isn’t based solely on obscure Greek words but a unified sexual ethic across both Testaments, grounded in creation (Genesis 1–2), reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19), and explained by Paul.
Conclusion
Unity in the church is essential, and Romans teaches us to avoid pride and exclusion. But true unity must also be grounded in truth. Paul’s goal wasn’t unity at the expense of moral clarity—it was mutual humility under God’s grace. Misusing Romans 2 to silence what Romans 1 clearly states does just as much violence to Paul’s intent as misusing Romans 1 to shame others without grace.
Churches and pastors must hold both together: truth and love, doctrine and humility, conviction and compassion.
Comment by Philip on July 5, 2025 at 3:14 pm
Different Steve,
I’m sorry, but I don’t respond to AI bots programmed specifically to tell the person using them what they want to hear in order to build trust and mimic empathy. It’s fine to use AI to assist with simply tasks like editing something you’ve already written yourself, but as many AI scientists would tell you, having them do your research for you still presents certain problems. They do make mistakes and have trouble weighing between what is reputable and what is popular. Studies have also shown prolonged reliance on AI for such purposes can actually alter the way your brain works in negative ways. As a fellow Christian, I recommend you exercise caution.
Comment by Different Steve on July 6, 2025 at 8:47 am
Yes, AI can make mistakes and sometimes struggles to weigh reputable sources against popular ones. That’s why it should never be used blindly. But when used carefully—cross-checking facts, understanding its limits—it can be a valuable tool, especially for organizing information, brainstorming, or clarifying ideas.
The idea that AI just tells people what they want to hear oversimplifies how it actually works. Many models are designed to be informative and balanced, not just agreeable. In fact, plenty of users rely on AI to offer counterarguments and help them see things from different angles. It’s not about flattery—it’s about expanding understanding.
As for concerns about cognitive effects: that risk exists with any technology that reduces effort—calculators, GPS, even search engines. The key is how it’s used. If someone offloads all thinking to AI, that’s a problem. But using AI as a supplement to one’s own reasoning can actually make thinking sharper by exposing people to more structured, relevant information.
The bottom line is that AI isn’t a replacement for human thought or judgment—it’s a tool that can either dull or enhance those things depending on how it’s used. With care and critical thinking, it’s not only safe, but often beneficial.
Comment by Philip on July 6, 2025 at 10:10 am
Different Steve,
Well said. Did you write that or is that ChatGPT too?
Comment by Td on July 6, 2025 at 12:16 pm
Hahahahaha. I wonder what that answer will be….
Comment by Different Steve on July 6, 2025 at 3:43 pm
If it’s well said what matter who wrote it?
Comment by Different Steve on July 6, 2025 at 4:03 pm
Fact that something is “well said” should be sufficient. I think the prior post you claimed you didn’t respond to was well said also. Fact that you didn’t refute it’s points or logic suggests the same
Comment by Philip on July 6, 2025 at 5:10 pm
Different Steve,
Interesting that you refer to the AI as a “who” rather than a “what”. I didn’t refute the prior post because it wasn’t really addressed to me. It was adressed to you. If I had asked ChatGPT to respond to the comment using my account then it would have generated a response based on its prior interactions with me and whether it thought I was really trying to refute the post or strengthen the argument. Also when you asked it to respond did you only include the comment by itself or did you provide the larger context of the entire exchange between Mike and me? Context matters. On that at least Mike, I, and your AI seem to agree.
Comment by Different Steve on July 6, 2025 at 7:13 pm
I think ChatGPT exposed falacies in your post you can’t refute so you engage in avoidance such as attacking the source claiming context somehow makes a difference etc. People see through that stuff.
Comment by Philip on July 6, 2025 at 10:37 pm
Different Steve,
And what specific “fallacies” did ChatGPT identify? Please point them out without using an AI tool. Humor me.
Comment by Different Steve on July 7, 2025 at 9:15 am
Nope. Not going down your one way street. The two posts in question speak for themselves I think. That’ll have to do. People can make up their own mind. If you wanted your original post to be seen and change minds your subsequent endless evasive confrontational posts just serve to bury hide and minimize it. You think anybody’s going to slog though the hash you’ve made of the comments? I don’t. I might say works for me except i try to have no agenda except I like things to be civil and make sense. Hopefully we’re all seekers and aren’t totally incapable of change given adequate reason.
Comment by Philip on July 7, 2025 at 10:53 am
Different Steve,
I asked you to identify fallacies in my post because your ChatGPT didn’t identify any fallacies. It made some counterpoints, but that’s not the same thing. Fallacies occur when someone uses invalid reasoning or logic to arrive at a conclusion. An argument or position can be wrong without committing a fallacy. In fact, a conclusion arrived at using a fallacy can sometimes even still be correct. I’ll happily respond to any statement or argument from you, but I won’t reward intellectual laziness. I’m sorry if my primitive methods of engagement are too taxing.
Comment by Skipper on July 7, 2025 at 4:39 pm
“The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.” Proverbs 27:12
Comment by George on July 7, 2025 at 7:44 pm
You can see how these things come about. Baylor has accepted money from the Eula Mae and John Baugh foundation before. More than once. Why would the good caretakers of Baylor U ever risk offending the progressive heads of the foundation ? Money can bring good but can also corrupt.