Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Religion: the behavior of Christian faculty
Alan Jacobs, a member of the faculty at Wheaton College, writes a terrific essay about the higher standard of Christian faculty at Christian institutions of higher learning. He writes in the context of a tough call: Wheaton fired one of his colleagues for getting a divorce. Now, before you freak out and call Wheaton the Home of the Grand Inquisitor, read this, and see what you think.
Kent wasn’t fired for getting a divorce, as so many of the headlines say. Though Wheaton, in keeping with what it believes (and I believe) to be historic Christian teaching, sees divorce as a very bad thing, indeed often tragic, it does not fire people for getting divorced. We have a number of faculty who have been divorced while employed here; in the past dozen years or more, only one has been asked to leave. But the college authorities do ask to interview employees who are getting divorced in order to understand the circumstances. It was this interview that Kent declined to accept, and that’s where things unraveled.
Now, why would a college want to pry into such personal matters? Well, for a very good reason. If colleges and their faculties and staffs are in loco parentis - and they are still in that role at the best colleges – then that’s reason enough. But don’t take my word for it. Read the essay, and Jacobs’s defense of why it was okay for Wheaton to fire his good friend.
back to top88 Comments to “Religion: the behavior of Christian faculty”
In a world where knee jerk reactions and personal opinion all weigh the same, this kind of thoughtful thinking can be lost.
Alan Jacobs has done a good job of framing the context for Wheaton’s actions. As a Christian college professor, I am fully aware that any and all of my actions have repercussions beyond my personal life.
Report comment to moderator
If you click the “read this” link, you will enounter a link also to read the explanation of the university’s “covenant community” structure and consequent requirement for accountability of its members. It was most informative. I have no problem with it. If you are going to be a covenanted group, you must have accountability. If you want to be part of that, you must be willing to submit to it. If you decide you don’t like it for any reason, you can always leave.
It seems to me that Wheaton has every right to so structure itself. Some Christians will be delighted to have their college-aged children educated at such a school, and some students will be most happy to choose it for themselves (certainly the better scenario). Anyone who doesn’t like it can make the obvious appropriate choice–don’t teach there, don’t go to school there. Isn’t it just great that we all have the freedom to exercise this variety of choices? I, for one, am really thankful, and don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Report comment to moderator
Good for you, Metanoia!
Report comment to moderator
That was an excellent article by Mr. Jacobs that explains a difficult situation of BALANCE. 100% privacy cannot be maintained in this situation, nor should 100% public disclosure be expected. In most cases, the parties on both sides of the scale arrive at a suitable compromise and achieve a balance that is acceptable to everyone.
Unfortunately that compromise was not attainable in this situation and Mr. Jacob’s explanation was superb. He showed that neither Mr. Kent Gramm nor Wheaton were villains, but that both were honorable and honest in their handling of the situation. It’s just that the rules of the game no longer allow the two parties to accommodate one another. Mr. Gramm is sort of like a football player with a disqualifying knee injury. He just can’t play anymore and the coach has to reluctantly let him go.
It’s sorrowful, but that’s life in a fallen world.
Report comment to moderator
Alan Jacobs must have known the holes in his own argument, and I’m sorry he didn’t address them.
The predicament his college has designed for itself is a false choice between all or nothing. As Jacobs explains, a faculty member’s annual “Activity Report” gives up a lot of personal information, and teachers open themselves to observation in highly personalized relationships with faculty and students. So allowing some kind of tactful perimeter to protect people from curiosity doesn’t sever the ties that bind.
Jacobs makes the point that divorce itself wasn’t the problem. Fair enough. What the community couldn’t accept was uninvestigated divorce, the ambiguity that allowed the moral guardians to question whether something was rotten in Denmark. When something happens in a zone into which polite people don’t rush without invitation, a community based on the (fiction?) of complete transparency can’t agree not to know.
Yet this too is a false predicament. We can know a lot about people without subjecting them to inquisition. For example, Gramm’s divorce, unlike some, was discreet. Nothing stops a spouse from making accusations in or out of court. Further, a 20-year association that has produced as much affection and respect as Jacobs says Gramm has earned speaks volumes.
By praising Gramm’s bravery and then linking to Litfin’s ridiculous Q&Q, Jacobs seems to be making an implied criticism.
Wheaton is still the Kremlin! Litfin, unlike Jacobs, blames critics of Wheaton’s (perfectly legal) regime as “obsessively” individualistic who have no clue about community. Huh?
Jacobs must know that mentoring is done by people, not policies. Three generations of my family attended Wheaton. I’m the odd one out, but I don’t remember any personal attention from teachers until I transferred to U. Michigan, where even famous faculty took an interest in promoting me. Two Wheaton classmates who transferred to Harvard told me the same.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I was thinking through your argument until I got to the last paragraph. Then it just comes off like, I had a bad experience at Wheaton and so did these other guys. Therefore Wheaton is bad.
Report comment to moderator
There’s already a lengthy thread (221 comments) on the Nation page above.
Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/6c64by
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree with the policy. I think the teacher should be assumed innocent of wrongdoing unless there’s credible evidence to the contrary. Then, and only then, should he have to come give an accounting of his actions, and respond to the accusations.
However, it IS the policy of the school, and the teachers agree to it before being hired. That being the case, I don’t think this teacher should be exempt from the policy he agreed to abide by.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, SteveG and I agree!! You don’t have to like the covenant, you don’t have to work there, but once you’ve signed it, that’s it.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron–the problem with the “lengthy thread” on the Nation page is that it is mostly NOT about this issue, unfortunately, even though it was supposed to be.
Adios–I sort of got the same idea. On the other hand, I know several students who absolutely LOVED Wheaton. I know only what I read in these articles, on the link to the question and answer thing, and what others have told me. Other than that I know nothing about Wheaton except by reputation. I have absolutely no personal experience with it. But I think the way they operate is their choice, and whoever doesn’t like it should not consider going there. Like I said, there are a multitude of choices. Better to pick another than to spend time bashing one.
And like Cameron says, if you don’t like covenant, for sure don’t sign it.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#5):
I see no holes in Jacob’s presentation. Wheaton’s position is not an all or nothing one. As I said in my previous post, it is a question of balance. Neither side gets 100%.
The question of divorce needed investigation, not because the Wheaton administrators were nosy inquisitors, but because Christianity does allow for divorce under certain circumstances but not in others. So, those responsible for maintaining the school’s standards needed to know the reasons for the divorce, not to blare it across campus but to discreetly fulfill their responsibilities. They wouldn’t need to know all the details, just the basic reasons.
That would be the only way that the school could be sure that the divorce was permissible under Christian standards. Then the aspect of Mr. Gramm’s job as a role model for students would remain intact. When Mr. Gramm stonewalled them, for whatever reason, there was no alternative for everyone but to go their separate ways.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone who has followed this story KNOWS that Dr. Kent Gramm RESIGNED, he WAS NOT FIRED. To go over these facts again, is interesting, and this is why, …… those who keep bringing it up, and wanting yet another venue, such as this thread (there is another thread as Cameron pointed out on this blog) brings up the fact that there are embarrassments from Wheaton which just won’t go away.
Now its a Q&A – an “essay” to make sure everyone understands the paper Dr. Gramm signed 20 years ago, also very slyly pointing to 1, 2, 3, reasons why one might get a divorce. Isn’t that interesting, especially the ones that …….. remarked on? How impressive. Yet again trying to squeeze the answer from Dr. Gramm, not by a direct question, but by a paper which lists some very damming scenarios, —- pathetic. This is all fine and dandy, according to Wheaton, except ‘PRIVACY’ regarding Dr. Gramm is overlooked, those itching ears are still itching. The man resigned, and you at Wheaton are not going to get the story, no matter how many ways you try and word yet another letter. He has made it clear, just has Wheaton has made their rules clear –
Allan Jacobs makes these remarks within the body of his “essay” –
The Bonds of Community
Posted by Alan Jacobs on May 2, 2008, 11:43 AM
“The answer to that last question is, alas, “It depends.” I know nothing whatsoever about Kent’s situation, but cannot imagine that any of the following scenarios apply in his case, so these are mere thought experiments, focusing on extreme possibilities.”
How very un-clever to make the remark that the three listed above are “mere thought experiments,” ——- WHY MAKE ANY GUESS’S (thought experiments) at all? Anyone can word a so called ‘essay’ in such a way as to cast a disparaging light on any given subject or person by using this method. Even kids in H.S. play these games, yes they are games, but one might call it an essay.
Another point I want to make which I asked on the this blog which was the first one on this subject titled, “Wheaton prof explains divorce policy”
My post 205 by Victoria
See post 25 -
Report comment to moderator
The college has every right to terminate this professor for cause. The professor has every right to tell the college to get lost. It looks like the law and personal rights are working just fine here. The Professor violated his contract and the college terminated him for it.
What is not working fine here is Christian forgiveness of sin and realizing that God is judge not this college and one not taking the personal responsibility and accountability in living up to a legal contract.
Report comment to moderator
Lets not forget Dr. Kent Gramm was married for 30 years, he became a Professor at Wheaton 20 years ago, that is when he signed the paper.
Why won’t Wheaton let this go, why is this an ongoing letter, essay, Q&A barage of words, which isn’t going to change anything? Who’s winning, it sure isn’t Wheaton.
I am a strong Born Again Christian, I have many friends who went to Wheaton, things change, Universities change…….we see this every year. I am not for divorce at all, I don’t believe one can remarry if they don’t have a Biblical divorce, but having said that —- I don’t believe, even if a letter as Gramm signed should be questioned as to his decision to resign rather than spill his soul to Wheaton.
This should end, it,– it’s not a good example of what Christians should be doing, or how they treat one another. Wheaton is not a church, nor are the people who are eager to hear all the details ‘elders’ such as a church would have. That is something which has been forgotten.
A church which had a pastor getting a divorce would have every single right to have the ‘elders’ question at length the reason for the divorce.
I wanted to make my position clear regarding Scriptural divorce.
Report comment to moderator
Adios,
You need a better reason to reject an argument than your dislike of an accompanying anecdote. Besides, you’re being unfair. How else can one evaluate the claim to to the higher purpose of “mentoring,” than by looking at the diverse history of its implementation?
Wheaton’s policy certainly seemed to be “all or nothing” with respect to Gramm. The college was presented with a discreet divorce by mutual consent after a long marriage and long employment. Everyone denies any indication of scandal, mental illness, or personality disorder on the part of a teacher everyone says was admirable. Gramm was let go for the sake of leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of secret sin. The college declared that, even in the absence of suspicion, members of the community can’t be trusted to be accountable to God (vis-a-vis their pastors, for example) for the things that are unseen, for there is no accountability without accountability to the college. Remember, divorce itself wasn’t the problem. Gramm’s divorce didn’t present any of the symptoms of disqualifying divorce, but the college determined that divorce is disqualifying when it isn’t interrogated by the college. That’s an assertion of massive control.
Frankly, what troubles me most about this episode is Litfin’s claim that anyone who doesn’t understand is “obsessively” individualistic and insensitive to community. Jacobs didn’t descend to the personal recrimination expressed by Prof. Larsen in another thread here, which I take as a subtle rebuke of the way Gramm has been treated.
Report comment to moderator
As I said on the other thread, there are two possible questions as to Wheaton’s divorce investigation policy.
The first is whether they have a right to have this policy in the contract that the employees (and customers) sign. Absolutely. Even if it’s not fair, and I think it absolutely is, Wheaton is a private institution and has the right to place whatever requirements on employment there that it wants.
The second is whether Wheaton should have this policy. That is the question that is debatable. Once again, I think that Wheaton has is completely justified in trying to ascertain a basic picture of the situation. I would be interested to know if they discretely, politely, contacted Dr. Gramm’s wife and asked her comment. Now, divorce, though not wrong in and of itself, is a symptom of wrongdoing, and should always be investigated within reason if it occurs inside any Christian institution. Divorce is a serious thing. I doubt that either Wheaton or Dr. Gramm wish to disparage each other–indeed, Dr. Gramm has said that the reason that he did not submit to the interview was that he did not want to disparage his wife. Wheaton has a calling to purge injustice from within itself, wherever possible. At least a cursory investigation should be conducted to discover whether any such was involved in Dr. Gramm’s divorce, and what the hypothetical consequences of this would be.
Suppose someone disappears, and their body is found in the woods about a mile from Person X’s house. Would the police assume that Person X was innocent until proven guilty, or would they investigate? You tell me.
Report comment to moderator
Those of you who say that the college does not have a right to be inquisitive in this, you are right to a point.
The key here is that a CURSORY investigation is warranted. By no means is leaving no stone unturned in search of secret sin justified.
Report comment to moderator
I think part of the problem is that Dr. Gramm signed the covenant, not Mrs. Gramm. (At the time they most likely had a good marriage, seeing as it lasted another 20 years, and Dr. Gramm probably couldn’t imagine this situation ever arising). Yet in regard to an interview by an administrative committee at Wheaton, it is not only his own privacy in question but also that of his ex-wife.
Perhaps a better approach for Wheaton would be to seek assurance that their faculty members are active in local churches where they are accountable to the leadership of their church. In the case of a divorce or other situation where they would have reason to be concerned, they could ask the pastor whether there were issues that would affect the person’s suitability to continue to be a role model for the students, without having to know any specifics of the situation. (If the answer were no, they would have reason to ask the faculty member further questions.)
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Michael, you said it earlier, and probably better.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, that is a good idea, but the main problem with it is that in most large churches, the pastor is unable or unwilling to involve himself at the personal level with his congregants that that would require. Indeed, in some more liberal churches, the pastor may be unwilling to involve himself because he may believe it is none of his business.
The bottom line is, if you want something done right, you often have to do it yourself. That’s why Wheaton can’t leave this solely to the churches it’s members are parts of.
Report comment to moderator
We have here a continuation and ‘itching ear’ syndrome, which isn’t satisfied, they must have an “INVESTIGATION should be conducted to discover…..”
Yes sir, lets get right on it, Dr. Gramm resigned and we still have the ‘investigator’ wannabe’s who can’t wait to get the details, search out the dirt, come up with a story, find every scrap of evidence, interview the neighbors, talk to the mannger of the super market, interview their friends. GET RIGHT ON IT!
Oh my goodness, lets compare a divorce, and resignation from Wheaton to someone disappearing, and a body found in the woods. This last paragraph reeks with a desire to play DETECTIVE.
These sorts of ideas, and a need to delve into the personal lives of others begs the question of how sound is this, and where does this sort of need for ‘drama’ come from?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (re #8) – If you understand the covenant marriage position, there had to be something fairly serious wrong for any divorce to occur, and they are not often 100% one spouse’s being in the wrong. As such, the mere fact of the divorce (regardless of how civil or discrete) means that the college had to look into it to some degree.
It wasn’t some high level of publicity or rancor of the split that would be required to raise a sufficient specter of need to investigate. Its very occurance triggered that need.
Report comment to moderator
Alan Jacobs is a professor of what, English? His “thought experiment” is badly conceived, for he suggests that the morally blameless circumstance of being abandoned by a spouse who falls in love with someone else somehow preserves one’s fitness to be a mentor for the young. Any college can be hospitable to versions of Edward Casaubon, virtuous people who can’t grow, on whom love is wasted. No doubt, Casaubon would submit gladly to Wheaton’s inquisition, and produce evidence that Dorothea Brooke was a scandal. So I think George Elliot would disagree with Prof. Jacobs about role models.
Report comment to moderator
KRM, the man resigned, that should end the drama. There is nothing in the paper that Dr. Gramm signed that stated he would be investigated if he resigned and decided NOT TO SHARE any of the reasons for a divorce.
Who has a right to INVESTIGATE a divorce if a man resigns his position? NO ONE!
Report comment to moderator
#20,
Cicero,
I thought about that, and I don’t know what the best way to deal with that is. I taught at one (K-12) Christian school that required its faculty to attend one of a list of approved churches, and I’m not too keen on that. The Christian college I attended did not have a list of “approved” churches, but we did have to report where we attended, and I imagine if I had consistently gone to a liberal church that the college chaplain might have wanted to discuss it with me.
As others have indicated, a college is not a church, and while they have many of the same goals and concerns, the college administration is not in the same position of spiritual leadership over people as the elders of a local church. And I don’t think they should be (unless they want to be both church and educational institution, as some churches do). If the college wants to ensure that their faculty have appropriate spiritual oversight, they need to have a policy that requires the faculty to be involved in a church where that is the case. A church that does not provide this (in a larger church there should be sufficient lay leadership – of course it is not going to be the pastor who knows everyone well – but when problems arise it makes sense that the pastor would learn of them) is not the kind of church that the kind of people Wheaton wants on its faculty (going by what I read in the attached essay) would want to be a part of. Since the faculty must agree to a statement of faith, I would not think they would be going to the “more liberal” churches.
Report comment to moderator
Who started this story in the Chicago newspapers? Prof. Larsen, in the thread Victoia referenced, stated (paragraph #5) that Prof. Gramm did so in an effort to drag Wheaton’s “…name through the mud.” This gives the liberal media a welcome opportunity to gleefully jump on the Christians they dislike anyway.
Before I read that, I thought this was a simple case of the college discreetly doing its job and a man merely wanting a little more privacy for himself and his family than the college could allow.
However, if the source is Prof. Gramm, taking the story to the newspapers certainly short-circuits and calls into question his supposed desire for privacy. I cannot agee with deliberately giving our enemies opportunities and ammunition to slander the faith merely because you are angry with fellow Christians who are just doing their job.
On the other hand, if Prof. Larsen is false in his accusation against Prof. Gramm, then he is wrong and that just makes things worse.
Good grief! I don’t know what to think now, except that this whole thing should have been kept private from the very beginning. The only ones benefiting are the liberals, laughing and gloating over this unseemly Christian bloodletting
Report comment to moderator
25. True, Pauline, they likely would not be going to a more liberal church. But at the same time, Wheaton College is a church. It is a community of believers. A church is not a building, it is not a group of people, it is not an institution or organization. A church is any and every group of people linked by Christ. If anyone here would like to dispute that on BIBLICAL grounds, besides the issue eldership which is irrelevant to the definition of a church, please do so. I don’t think you will be successful though.
21. Victoria, is Dr. Gramm still being investigated? By the establishment at Wheaton? Because it was my understanding that they let it go entirely, besides attempting to defend their reputation, when he resigned. If he is in fact being hounded as we speak by college officials, then you have a point. Otherwise, the only itching ears are ours who keep dredging up this issue that should have gone the way of the dinosaur about a week ago.
My analogy to a murder mystery, or in fact to any kind of legal crime, is completely legitimate. I have no desire to play detective here, and the fact that you constantly read things like that into people’s comments and put words in their mouths suggests a good deal of arrogance. It’s completely unprofessional. It’s also rude. I would hope that coming across that way is not what you want.
I included that analogy, not to learn about the divorce for myself, but to explain why Wheaton’s actions are justified. It is pertinent and sound. In order to assume someone is innocent unless proven guilty, then if their innocence is crucial to your calling, you first have to prove their innocence.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Michael. Now if we could just get all the Christians to see things our way, everything would be just peachy.
Report comment to moderator
Cicero,
I agree. Please wake me when it’s over.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I have thought and read over the same line you quote, — “…name through the mud.” –
I don’t know whether Dr. Kent Gramm went to the news media or whether someone leaked it to the press and Dr. Gramm felt compelled to tell them he simply resigned rather than discuss his and his wife’s reasons for divorce.
Interesting that this has come out, and continues to grow like a bad weed just when some of the liberals have signed an Evangelical Manifesto made public on May 7th 2008. The President of Wheaton signed the Evangelical Manifesto. You can find more on the thread “Interview with Richard Mouw” who is President of Wheaton.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
When I think of liberal with respect to the church, I think of things like the episcopal group that recently said it was okay to have gay pastors, and those who deny the ultimate authority of the Bible. I’m thinking that the Evangelical Manifesto people are mostly moderates and would all or almost all disagree with the two examples I just mentioned.
Report comment to moderator
Cicero, when going to the extreme as you have done, makes no point. There are many liberal churches with homosexual pastors.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
What you just wrote doesn’t make any sense. Please elaborate so that I understand what you are saying.
Report comment to moderator
Cicero,
I have nothing to say to you. After your response to me last night on the thread below, post 217, I will most likely avoid any posting where you are concerned.
Your post 217 which states:
LINK BELOW
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN @26 misquotes Prof Larsen, who accused Gramm of dragging his wife, not Wheaton College, through the mud.
Prof. Larsen wrote for World Mag: . . . Gramm has decided to start the blame game and accuse Wheaton of being the unreasonable partner. This relationship could have ended with a lot more class, but instead Gramm’s use of the media has dragged his long-term partner’s name through the mud.
What Larsen calls “use of the media” consists of Gramm’s confirming public information in a Sun-Times interview. He doesn’t defend or blame the college. He certainly didn’t discuss the circumstances of his divorce, contrary to Michael Martin’s implication.
Notice, Prof. Jacobs calls Gramm a fine colleague and an honarable and brave man . Why can’t Larsen and the Wheaton president simply acknowledge the painful cost of a policy which maintains a particular kind of ethos at the price of losing some valuable and honorable people? Instead, they want to pretend they have no responsibility or connection with the pain and publicity that result. That’s immature, at best, and authoritarian, at worst — assigning blame for the marginal products of one’s policies.
Report comment to moderator
Cicero and Victoria — why don’t you take your interminable discussion back to the other thread where it started?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Good. I have nothing more to say to you then, and I wish I had had the self-discipline to cut myself off from your caustic discourse long ago. Unfortunately, my urge to seek and defend the truth sometimes gets in the way of my better judgment. I stand by the truth of what I said last night, though I may find later that it was unnecessarily hurtful. At this time though, I believe it was completely justified and perhaps even less offensive than many things you’ve said to me in the past. Interesting though, that you wait until now, after several most posts, and after I’ve been utterly polite since then, to close the door. But, now that you do, SEE TO IT THAT YOU UPHOLD YOUR END OF THIS.
Report comment to moderator
MY COMMENTS – 34
“I have nothing to say to you. After your response to me last night on the thread below, post 217, I will most likely avoid any posting where you are concerned.”
There is nothing to “UPHOLD” I have signed no contract, no investigation would be necessary only “I will most likely” – LOL
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry you think this is funny.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#35),
I have read and reread the article, especially paragraph #5, several times now. The long-term (20 year) relationship Prof. Larsen is speaking of is that between Gramm and Wheaton. Wheaton is Gramm’s long-term partner in that relationship. He then goes on to speak of Gramm dragging that long-term partner’s name through the mud. I have not misqoted Prof. Larsen. I believe it is you who has failed to comprehend what is being said by Prof. Larsen.
Neither did I imply that Gramm discussed the circumstances of his divorce. What I did say was that IF Gramm was the initiator of the news stories, it would seem contrary to his supposed desire for privacy. Thus the whole story has become a confusing mess of contradictory assertions and accusations. It would be nice to know the truth.
On the other hand, the whole thing has gotten far more press than it deserves and I believe that most of us are tired of it— except, of course, liberals who welcome the personal satisfaction they get out of continuing to vent their spleen against Christians at every opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
Correction POST 30
I posted “You can find more on the thread “Interview with Richard Mouw” who is President of Wheaton.”
The above is INCORRECT:
My sentence should have read:
You can find more on the thread “Interview with Richard Mouw” who is President of Fuller Seminary.”
Report comment to moderator
I can’t imagine that Wheaton deliberately informed the press about this in any way. It certainly would bring them little positive press.
The professor, on the other hand, stands to have his case tried in the press, so to speak.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron you make a good point, however it only takes ONE STUDENT, or ONE individual – FACULTY, or anyone who decided to call the press. It’s done every day, not only in politics, but in every area of society.
Report comment to moderator
An interesting observation:
Much of the media said Dr. Gramm was fired, (this was from the beginning) where did they get this information from? Was it someone who didn’t know the FACTS but the news media believed whoever said it, thinking they were a reliable source?
How many people knew about the separation from Wheaton by Dr. Gramm? How many students, professors, administrative staff, then you must not forget their spouses. Now, out of all these people the media is told that Dr. Gramm has been fired, but it isn’t true.
NOW Dr. Gramm is faced with a situation in which HE MUST DEFEND HIMSELF and SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT – And for this he has been drug through the mud, not Wheaton, but Gramm.
Dr. Kent Gramm wasn’t fired and he said so, he also added that he didn’t want to talk about his wife. Dr. Gramm said that HE RESIGNED how else would this man defend himself when it was said he was fired?
Report comment to moderator
As a current Wheaton student, albeit one who is graduating tommorrow, the real issue that much of the student body and many of the faculty see is that Dr. Litfin and the administration are, in general, very high-handed in their approaches to any potentia problems. I have talked with few people who believe that the college should not continue to consider divorce a serious matter (including Dr. Jacobs himself), but the real issue here is one internal to the community. The administration here has consistently (over my 4 years here) presumed to sit on judgment on matters like this. Dr. Gramm was asked to give an account of himself not so that he could repent, be forgiven, and rejoin the community, but so the administration could judge how bad his sin was. This is not a truly Christian approach. I have absolutely loved Wheaton, but there is much internal to the community that outsiders cannot see, and cannot be explained in a newspaper article. This is really a matter of the manner in which Dr. Gramm was called out to be judged, not called out so that he ocould be forgiven and restored.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
One would wonder how any student or general faculty member would have knowledge (before the resignation) of the issue at hand, unless one or both parties chose to discuss it. Again, it certainly wouldn’t benefit Wheaton to do so.
Wesley,
I appreciate your input as a student. I do not want to make claims about the motivations of the administration or Dr. Gramm.
Report comment to moderator
As a future Wheaton student, I think it’s a little strange that people might say that Wheaton should have turned the other cheek to the negative publicity, and then say that Dr. Gramm had no choice but to defend himself publicly.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Dr. Gramm made it clear he was getting a divorce, they (Wheaton) wanted to know why, he would not reveal his reasons which has been stated many times —– he resigned.
Below an excerpt from an article:
Inside Higher Ed
April 25
Divorce: Grounds for Dismissal
Such is the case with Professor Gramm, a faculty member since 1988. For him, he says, it didn’t seem appropriate “to subject your personal life to the judgment of the college administrators.” However, he told his students of his reasons for leaving – first reported in Wheaton’s student newspaper, The Wheaton Record – to offer them an alternative model of Christian living. Gramm, who teaches literature, fiction and nonfiction writing, has his master of divinity degree in addition to his M.A. and Ph.D.
“I think the students can be given a false picture of what the proper Christian life should be,” Gramm says. “Whereas many of these students come from households that have been broken by divorce, and if they conform to the overall population, half of them themselves will be going through divorce. And if they are shown that God doesn’t abandon you if you are divorced and they’re shown that this is a part of life and that sometimes it can possibly be the right thing or the best thing, not necessarily the desirable thing, to do, then I think that might help them in their future lives.”
— Elizabeth Redden
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/25/wheaton
Report comment to moderator
Wesley
YOU POST:
I appreciate the time you took, and the thoughtful post you made.
Congratulations on graduating tomorrow.
God bless you on your journey -
Report comment to moderator
45-
Thanks, Wesley. Callison’s book, Divorce: A Gift of God’s Love would bring a breath of fresh air to the campus.
Report comment to moderator
It is time to mow the yard now.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
If that was an issue, I doubt that they would allow divorced faculty members in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Cicero,
then why are they judging? I would think that the book would lighten the burden carried by the Christian world regarding their assumed obligation to manage divorced peoples’ lives.
Report comment to moderator
#27 “A church is any and every group of people linked by Christ…. the issue [of] eldership which is irrelevant to the definition of a church”
Cicero,
I agree that the church is not the building or an institution. But to say that any and every group linked by Christ is a church? Does that mean that those of us who post on the blog who are Christian are a church? That my co-workers who are Christian are a church?
And why is eldership irrelevant? One of the major differences between the different kinds of denominations (e.g. Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist) is the governing structure of the church. Yes, they are all churches. But those differences are not insignificant.
The New Testament does not make it very clear how the leadership is to be structured, otherwise there would not be churches ruled by bishops, churches practicing congregational rule, and church electing elders to represent them, all claiming to find the basis for their polity in the New Testament.
I don’t think I belong to a bunch of different churches, just because I am part of various groups of people that include Christians. Being accountable to mature Christian leaders in the church is important in one’s Christian life – but I only need to be accountable to the leadership of one church, not several.
Wheaton is a community of Christians. I’m sure they worship together, pray together, minister with and for each other. But I do not consider that to make them “a church.” Eldership does matter.
I don’t think it would be best for Wheaton to be “a church” either. There is a richness that we get from the various Christian traditions. I don’t mean that all are equally correct in their doctrine, as some hold doctrines that clearly contradict doctrines held by others. But there is much in terms of worship, ministry emphasis, etc. that churches can learn from each other. And for a college to say “we are your church” would either mean that they would limit their people from gaining from the richness of the different traditions, or would put people in the position of trying to be part of more than one church.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I was well aware of the order of events, which is why I’m surprised you’re on the other side of this. He voluntarily signed a covenant that said he would explain an event like a divorce, chose not to, and resigned.
According to the article you provided, it’s clear he is the one who chose to take the whole thing public, which is in poor taste. He says he doesn’t want to accuse his wife, but saying that is a backhanded way of doing just that. He’ll probably have to discuss it with the judge in the divorce case, but not to the people he covenanted to do so with?
Report comment to moderator
So. Was Gramm fired or did he resign? Why is there no consistency regarding that point. HSK, do you know?
HSK, since the was previously posted on this blog, why are you bothering to bring it up again? Are you glutton for punishment?
Cameron, I think it’s in poor taste to accuse someone of acting in poor taste when you’ve only bothered to come up with one possible conclusion as to why Gramm made this public. Things aren’t always as simple a you’d like to make them. In any case, I’ve made my position clear in the other post so I’m not going to bother repeating myself here.
Report comment to moderator
testing
Report comment to moderator
Cameron
The article doesn’t prove he took it public at all. The article was an explanation to his students. The article appeared in the Wheaton paper.
When a person signs something as Professor Gramm signed, ….. he had an option, IF he wanted to continue to teach at Wheaton, he would have to disclose the reason’s for his divorce, ….. since he decided against doing that, he resigned. Therefore, Gramm resigned, that should have been the end, but it isn’t. Those who are staff, including the person who wrote the material, that was given for this thread and the other one are more than willing to continue the tirade.
Professor Gramm obviously put more importance upon his families privacy than he does his position at Wheaton. I commend him for that.
We don’t know, nor is it any of anyone’s business WHY they divorced or what sin who committed, that is for GOD to decide. The main point is, Gramm left, resigned, that’s it…..but not for Wheaton, they want the details, and the Gramm’s aren’t giving it to them.
The Gramm’s have most likely gone through excruciating pain concerning this situation, wouldn’t you think it charitable to allow them the privacy, they desire, after all, Dr. Gramm is not at Wheaton. How much love is there, to watch them suffer, and keep this up? —– writing papers, essays? Who’s next on the soap box?
Report comment to moderator
He wouldn’t have had to “blame his wife.” He could have cited irreconcilable differences, having tried counseling–the usual sad story.
But as the essay elucidates, Wheaton is structured in such a way that they have an obligation to ask whether he’s dumping her for a student or some other notorious reason that would compromise the community.
The man signed a convenant, and when he wants to break it, he’s not content to do so discreetly and accept the practical consequences of his choice; he vents to his students, knowing how prone they will be to emotionalism and leaping half-cocked into the fray of the day. That speaks volumes about his integrity.
Report comment to moderator
“But the only way these matters could be worked out is through long and difficult conversations between the person suffering through divorce and the college leadership”
What…”the college leadership”????????
It may be reasonable for the college to ask that he discuss these matters with those who hold spiritual authority over him, such as his pastor. But there should be no requirement that he air is personal spiritual struggles to Duane Litfin. In this sense, Litfin wrongly usurps the authority of the local church.
Wheaton College is not a church, and Litfin has no proper spiritual authority over any faculty member or any student.
There are plenty of ways to ensure that faculty are not living in open unrepentent sin. Wheaton, and its egomaniacal President have merely chosen a way that is too paternalistic and too littered with ecclesiological error.
Gramm was fired because he refused to kiss the feet of the fundamentalist rube who currently serves as Wheaton’s President. Good for Gramm. May others have the courage to stand up to Litfin before Wheaton becomes another Liberty University or Patrick Henry College.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi, I agree with much of what you say, but Dr. Gramm resigned rather than reveal the reason for his divorce. Wheaton isn’t satisfied, they want the DETAILS.
The witch hunt says much!
Report comment to moderator
Pauline 54.
By its true definition, there is only one church, but in that post, I referred to sections of the church as individual churches for convenience and to make more sense. Christians should function as one unit rather than delegating responsibility to certain extremities of it.
And when I said eldership was irrelevant, I meant it was irrelevant to the nature of the church as the body of Christ, and it’s irrelevant to the definition of communities of believers. By no means did I mean that eldership is irrelevant to church practice and belief.
Yes, any and every group linked by Christ is a part of the church, and, as I used the term above, a church proper. Church is about the relationship between people, not the legal, organizational, or material ties they have.
In the proper sense, there is no “your church” or “church home,” if you see what I mean.
Cameron, good job.
Report comment to moderator
I’m reminded of John Calvin and Servetus who was burnd at the stake in 1553. He wouldn’t agree with Calvin, and his punishment? …… check out history.
You can say that was then, in 1553 and this is now 2008 – however that doesn’t cut it, when you are talking about the Scriptures which was one thousand five hundred years old by the time Calvin took hold of them, and how did he treat those who didn’t agree with him?
“If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.” Calvin said this, but that’s ok, he was in charge, and it was 1553, does that make it right? What Bible was Calvin reading at that time
As Servetus died he exclaimed “Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me.”
I don’t agree with the beliefs of Michael Servetus OR John Calvin but to have him burned at the stake because Servetus didn’t agree with Calvin?
What is being done now, we don’t agree with many people, in fact I as a Born Again Believer do not agree with abortion, or ’same sex marriage’ –
How does this correspond to Gramm? The man resigned, he should be FREE from Wheaton and the hunt for more information. Who has the right to continue this mean spirited search. Perhaps one day the facts will present themsleves, perhaps they will be vile, and sinful, but they are not our sins, GOD will take vengence.
Dr. Gramm has resigned, can Wheaton resign from the hunt?
Report comment to moderator
Where are you all getting this surety that Wheaton is “still in the hunt” about the details of the prof’s divorce? I didn’t see that. It looked to me like Wheaton is wishing this had been kept confidential and that the media had something better to do.
Where do you read otherwise?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Kwerna.
I’ve been asking myself the same question.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN, you’re right. I’m the one who misinterpreted Larsen about the identity of the “partner” whom Gramm dragged through the mud. So much the worse for Larsen, because that still insinuates the nasty question about how Gramm treated all his partners.
Where do you see mud? We don’t know whether Gramm called the Sun Times or the Sun Times called Gramm. I strongly suspect the latter, but it matters little either way, because Gramm comes off as respectful and non-accusatory in print. All he does is confirm public information and express sadness. The only way you could characterize Gramm’s words as mud-slinging is by claiming that Gramm had a duty to refuse comment. Perhaps with your acute reading skills you can find the mud, but I can’t.
You’re being polemical and unfair about Gramm”s “supposed desire for privacy.” He had a role in a conspicuous institution during a period of “cultural warfare.” Divorce is a public proceeding. His resignation from Wheaton may be a matter of interest and curiosity to a million people. The Sun Times thought so. Gramm doesn’t want the condition of his marriage and his personal thoughts about it to be the object of inquiry by people he works for and with. How is that inconsistent? You can’t show any cause for discrediting Gramm on that ground. In fact, Alan Jacobs goes out of his way to praise Gramm’s bravery in sticking to an honorable position. You seem to be swallowing Larsen’s unsupported opinions, and I think I know why.
I think the “mud” is nothing more than public knowlege of a policy which makes some people support Wheaton more, and others respect it less. The fact that Wheaton may want to keep such incidents out of the press is understandable. My point is that Wheaton has a long custom of blaming individuals for the marginal products of its policies. I suspect Alan Jacobs agrees with that on some level. WESLEY makes a related point at #45.
In my experience, liberal spleens are a minor factor compared with the bile Christian institutions can produce all by themselves. Your posts prove you’re subtle enough to step up the complexity of your rhetoric. You’re already a few steps ahead of Larsen. Now, Michael, re-read Alan Jacobs — and Moth.
Report comment to moderator
I have an idea.
How about we recognize that the only people mudslinging are the people discussing on here and elsewhere in the media. I highly doubt that either Wheaton of Dr. Gramm wanted any kind of mudslinging or retributive action, and I highly doubt that either of them is continuing the discussion. That falls to the people on blogs and in other social discussions and in the press, who keep dredging this up and getting emotionally involved in it as if it was their business.
Report comment to moderator
LOL.
Why does HSK post on this topic again? Does “World” have a comment contest to see who gets the most comments? Harrison saw that the previous post got a lot of comments so he thought he’d post the topic again?
I’m wondering if Harrison Scott Key can check his sources on whether or not Gramm was fired or whether he resigned. I’m looking for more trivial information to fill my time.
Report comment to moderator
Kwerna,
I agree–Victoria is the only one I’ve noticed who still says Wheaton is badgering Gramm for details.
Report comment to moderator
How Wheaton College treats its own is the “business” of nobody but the trustees, technically, but it’s certainly a province for comment by others, including me. I left Wheaton. Four members of my family graduated. One of them received an “alumnus of the year” award. Three family members married Wheaton grads. Others attended. Some were admitted but chose not to attend, some tried, and some in the third and fourth generations are likely to try and enroll if they can.
Nobody has ever laughed at me for going to Wheaton. On the contrary, I’ve received important breaks and advantages because of it, as have others I know, so I can’t help engaging when a Wheaton professor posts provocative comments on this blog.
I still would like to know, what Larsen and others like Cicero to say what they think the mud is.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m paraphrasing someone else for effect when I speak of the mud, and I’m not saying it in an argumentative manner. The mud is the constant bickering that has taken place here and within……this issue, regardless of who made it into “mud.” What are you saying when you say that nobody has ever laughed at you for going to Wheaton? What do you think the mud is? Could you rephrase your question?
Report comment to moderator
Below are two paragraphs which are on this blog on TOPIC-THREAD “Wheaton prof explains divorce policy”
As anyone can see Larson is anxious and eager to defend Wheaton, while at the same time finding fault with Professor, Dr. Kent Gramm and his resignation from Wheaten due to his divorce.
Dr. Gramm did resign and walk away, he also told his students he was obtaining a divorce in the Wheaton paper. There is no reason why Dr. Gramm should not have told his students that he was obtaining a divorce, and in so doing, he would resign as he was not going to share the details with Wheaton. However others feel he has “dragged his long-term partner’s name through the mud.” which I don’t believe is true at all.
Why would Larson come on this blog and bring it up here, and then there is another person on this thread who’s “essay” is linked doing the same thing. It was Shakespeare who said, “thou protesteth too much” – it appears Wheaton is doing a sad ’sales’ job, and it gets worse with each ‘protesting’ they participate in.
Wheaton prof explains divorce policy
Written by Timothy Larsen
May 6, 2008
There is no reason why you should know about a faculty member leaving Wheaton College (Wheaton, Illinois), so, in case you did not happen to see the front page story in the Chicago Sun-Times, or the one of the cover of the Metro section of the Chicago Tribune, or the national coverage by ABC or Fox news—not to mention the numerous other media outlets that carried the story—here is a quick recap.
The irony is Wheaton College already has a no-fault divorce policy. You can walk away from our Community Covenant at any time with no questions asked. You can just say, “none of your business,” about anything, and leave this covenant relationship instantly. Instead of pursuing this discreet, no-fault option, however, after a twenty-year covenantal relationship with Wheaton, Gramm has decided to start the blame game and accuse Wheaton of being the unreasonable partner. This relationship could have ended with a lot more class, but instead Gramm’s use of the media has dragged his long-term partner’s name through the mud.
Can anyone PROVE that Dr. Gramm went to the media, or did they come to him?
Report comment to moderator
Either way, he spoke about it.
Why would Wheaton be the one to go to the press of any sort?
How, exactly, would they benefit in any way?
Today’s media certainly wouldn’t give Wheaton positive press for holding to a standard others would find antiquated or overreaching.
Report comment to moderator
My impression from Larson’s opening paragraph –
“There is no reason why you should know about a faculty member leaving Wheaton College (Wheaton, Illinois), so, in case you did not happen to see the front page story in the Chicago Sun-Times, or the one of the cover of the Metro section of the Chicago Tribune, or the national coverage by ABC or Fox news—not to mention the numerous other media outlets that carried the story—here is a quick recap.”
was that it contained a certain amount of sarcasm. He’s saying that there’s no reason you should know about a faculty member leaving, but I don’t think he expects there to be very many people at all that haven’t heard yet, that will be hearing it for the first time from him. Considering how the front pages of major newspapers and national news that carried the story, I think he expects that almost everyone will already have heard of it, even though there is no good reason for that to be the case. He offers his “quick recap” just to tell the story in his own way, not to tell people who never heard it before. At least that’s how I read it.
Report comment to moderator
You’ve heard the expression that a lie can run halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
This is the author’s attempt to counter media distortions and get the truth out the door. Nothing sinister about that.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
I agree.
Report comment to moderator
71-74.
I think it’s fair to say most of us do.
Report comment to moderator
Cicero —
Nobody disparages a Wheaton alumnus for having gone to a school that breaks for week-long prayer revivals, forbids participation in conventional cultural activities (I believe you needed permission to go to the opera, for example), or demands affirmation of particular propositions which academia considers to be incompatible with language, physics, and biology, etc. I couldn’t have gotten into U. of Michigan without having gone first to Wheaton. Two classmates of mine who left with me say they wouldn’t have gotten into Harvard. Nevertheless, “fundies” live with a chip on their shoulder regarding the scandal their version of the Gospel supposedly causes in Athens. They react to any kind of criticism at all as “mud.”
You might wonder if Larsen’s animosity towards Gramm doesn’t reflect the old Socratic value of protecting the truth from exposure to the frivolous and ignorant. By speaking to the world about his resignation, Gramm knew he was exposing the college’s honorable pursuit of Wisdom to derision. Gramm didn’t attack Wheaton personally (in the story I read, anyway) but Larsen makes him indirectly responsible for the unwanted attention.
Ever since Socrates, we’ve wondered about the very familiar issues raised by Gramm’s resignation. Can wisdom be transferred to the young? Does that transferral depend on virtue? Wheaton employs all kinds of evaluative terms that nobody knows quite how to define, but ultimately retreats behind a wall of pious obedience to its Traditionally Known Deity. Individualism — the disposition to leave people to their consciences to hear the voice of their own inspiring deity — doesn’t work at Wheaton. And Wheaton doesn’t want the world to know about the trials that result in hemlock.
I’m a great admirer of Cicero, by the way. He believed that wisdom could be taught (for magnificent fees) and would pay dividends in terms of social connections, power, and wealth.
Report comment to moderator
71-75 I’d like to add myself to this lot.
Report comment to moderator
Could we be done now?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Anyone who listens to the voice of their own personal deity is certifiably crazy. Can one blame Wheaton for leading others to know of the Creator and Savior instead?
Report comment to moderator
So, how is the Wheaton College football team looking for the Fall?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I think things have changed since there was a rule about opera attendance, but as you’ll be quick to notice if not to point out, that opens another whole can of worms. Was the same president in charge when you attended? If Wheaton opens doors to Harvard, I’m not complaining though. I am somewhat surprised to hear that U of Michigan is/was more selective that Wheaton, but I haven’t been terribly in tune with more than the big names and the places I applied.
Was it really a Socratic value that the truth was too much for the masses? I guess that shouldn’t really surprise me. I don’t think Larsen’s focus reflects that, however. I do think that circumstances tend to aggravate any tension into active “animosity” that was not intended to be there when the press and opposing ideologies get involved though, which has happened in this case. I understand your statement that Wheaton’s teachings don’t agree with academic physics/biology, though I don’t agree with it, but how does language fit in? And though you’ve stated it in a less than positive way, I do agree with your statement about Wheaton’s traditionally known deity. I do think, though, that there is room for individualism there. I will fit in somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you’ve described. I will seek this deity, whom many have known traditionally, but I will NOT seek him for the sake of tradition. He has promised that those who seek will find, and if He is real, then I will find Him, in this life or the next. If He is not real, then I may or may not discover that. I also disagree that “trial resulting in hemlock” applies to this particular situation at Wheaton. I think they’ve done what was right, all things considered. But I’m not on the inside of things, and neither are any of us, with the possible exception of those within Wheaton, and I am not qualified to say for certain.
I think what you’ve said about Cicero, the Roman, is a compliment. I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say what he believed, because it sounds kind of snobby and negative, so I think you may be sarcastic, but I’m not sure, and I’d rather not assume. And I think that wisdom can be taught, but only to a degree. When wisdom is only being taught, and not also learned through experience, it becomes purely academic and somewhat useless. But there is definitely a place for teaching it. Defining wisdom does become hard to do, perhaps more so than any of the “evaluative terms” you mention.
Drill–80–
Lol. That made me laugh. While I can’t speak for the football team with any authority, I know that the guy who was drafted won’t be there anymore, which could be a liability, but I predict that they will do as usual. I can say that the swim team is going to be SUPERB this coming year, since I’m going to be on it.=PPP
Janie,
Since our commonly asked question isn’t being answered by the person we directed it to, then yes, we probably are done. The analogy of a witch hunt no longer seems appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
Among CICERO’s considered judgments I do think, though, that there is room for individualism there. . . I also disagree that “trial resulting in hemlock” applies to this particular situation at Wheaton.
Socrates was accused of impiety for discounting the community gods in favor of an “unknown” god, the inner voice of his daemon. The people of Athens were justifiably outraged that he saw room for improvement in the pantheon and that he elevated his own conscience. They also resented that he scoffed at the notion that wisdom could be taught and refused to accept fees (though he did let you buy him meals and drinks) which undercut the traditional role of education. Protagoras and Gorgias, by contrast, claimed enormous fees for what Socrates was making fun of. Socratic irony — the claim that he didn’t know anything of significance except the fact that he didn’t know anything — is seen by some, such as the neo-con godfather Leo Strauss, as a rhetorical misdirection designed to keep the Truth out of unclean hands. Of course, people argue about this.
Gramm’s struggle with Wheaton over accountability to authority has some parallels to Socrates. In so far as we only see people from the “outside,” can the community leave people’s secrets to their own conscience? Or, does a person’s secrecy and potential estrangement require investigation? Clearly, people were angry with Gramm over his “obsessive” individualism.
Where there is room for individualism, there is no room for the evil that succumbs to the temptation to purify, to expunge all sin, to throw Jonah over the rails, and to repeal the banishment from Eden.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for the information. It’s much appreciated.
Those are hard questions, granted, and I won’t pretend to know the answers, but I still think Wheaton’s policy is justified.
When I first read your last paragraph, my first thought was that I disagreed. I also notice, as an aside, that repealing the banishment from Eden doesn’t seem to fit with the others in the list.
But anyway, as I thought about it, I realized that though it may be evil to succumb to that sort of temptation, it is only human. And I find myself agreeing with you, but for a different reason. My beliefs are that it’s not anyone’s place to expunge all sin, or to purify the world, or to fix everybody’s problems. That’s God’s job to do as He sees fit.
Report comment to moderator
The evil temptation to “throw Jonah over the rails?” Come, come. They didn’t want to throw him in, in fact they were terrified to do so. He insisted, and they agreed as a last, desperate measure, and offered sacrifices to expiate their sin afterwards.
When you wax eloquent, you need to get your details right or it ruins the whole show.
Report comment to moderator
CICERO: repealing the banishment from Eden doesn’t seem to fit
You’re right, of course. I wish I had you as an editor. Correction:
Where there is room for individualism, there is no room for the evil that succumbs to the temptation to purify, to expunge all sin, to throw Jonah over the rails, and to sail unbanished into Eden’s harbor.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, KWERNA, I still think it sounds cool.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!