Today on AM radio, I was listening to the Michael Medved Show on my way home from work, and the topic of discussion was about Kent Gramm, a Wheaton College professor who was terminated because of his divorce from his wife of 30 years. What I found most interesting was the callers, who all disagreed with Wheaton College for what was done.
Michael continuously spoke of the fact that Wheaton has a very well known written policy which states that if a divorce occurs that does not align with the grounds for divorce found in Matthew 19, then they have the right to terminate staff or faculty. So, if the callers were listening, they should know this.
To sum up what I heard from the callers (in about a 35 minute time-span), the focus was on the “judging of character” and “second chances.” There were a couple of stragglers saying things like, “that’s why I won’t get married because I don’t want to get a divorce”, and “they really ought to have better ministries for people who have gone through a divorce”, but I’d like to comment on the former two.
To tear up the college and explain how they should have judged Gramm’s character, that is a dangerously naive comment. That caller has no idea how Wheaton handled the details of the situation, except that he assumes with surety that they threw the professors character out the window. The caller also takes the assumption that Gramm had great character. Two major assumptions that gave the caller reason to disagree with the college and consider them wrong for the termination. See the problem here?
What I am more confused about is the “what about giving him a second chance, and having grace” mentality. I agree with grace. I also agree to sticking with policy. Where is the line drawn? Lean too much on grace, then forget about having a policy. Lean too much on policy, and you enter into legalism which could choke out right opportunities for grace. What does that healthy balance look like? I certainly don’t know well enough to write anything here about it, but it is something very worth wrestling with, even for our own personal interactions with policies and grace.
Based on what I have heard (Michael Medved) and read (Chicago Tribune, wheaton.edu), I don’t find any fault in the Wheaton’s decision. It sounds as though professor Gramm was unwilling to discuss the reasons for divorce with the college. Some have argued that Gramm’s private life and reasons are not for the college to know. Well, when Gramm agreed to the policy in the first place, he agreed that there are specific reasons for termination when a divorce occurs, and if he wasn’t willing to discuss that, the college had a right to terminate him.
In The News
