Like many alumni, I was saddened to receive the word that historic Virginia Theological Seminary was dropping its longstanding policy entitled "Norms of Sexual Behavior," and putting in its place what was deemed by its authors as "A Call to a Holy Life."

Only a few years ago, many members of the VTS faculty published "A Wholesome Example," which was heralded by the wider Anglican Communion as one of the most pervasive arguments for maintaining the biblical and traditional standard of the church for sexual morality. Now, only a few years later, the board, despite strong opposition by many faculty members and alumni, has published a statement whereby (in the words of the dean of the seminary and the chair of the board) "Issues of sexuality need not automatically bar one from admission" [TLC, Feb. 16].

The decision, much like the one made by General Seminary a few years ago to allow for those who are sexually active outside the bonds of holy matrimony to live in campus housing, is confusing, premature and disturbing.

The new policy is confusing because of its many inconsistencies. On one hand, the new policy requires "sexual discipline and responsibility," but on the other, a candidate for admission will not "automatically" be barred from admission on issues of sexuality alone. Is this not an empty box into which anything can be placed? Can a candidate whose life is free from any other lack of virtue be admitted to the seminary if he or she is living in a "committed partnership" which is heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual in orientation as long as it is a "disciplined and responsible" life? Allowing for such stands in contradiction to our 2,000-year Christian history, our traditional faith, and the holy scriptures, which for so many years has been the bedrock of community life at VTS.

The statement released with the policy noted that the former policy "led to an excessive emphasis on matters of sexuality ..." and yet the seminary has maintained a clear and descriptive "Policy on Sexual Misconduct," which describes no less than 15 specific acts which were deemed "inappropriate in the context of this community" (for instance "persistent, unwanted sexual attention," "physical contact of a sexual nature between adults in unequal power relationships," and "inappropriate touching, embraces ...," etc.).

If the seminary can create such a comprehensive and fully appropriate policy on matters of sexual misconduct, why can it not do the same for issues of sexual orientation? When violence is present in our schools, we propose zero tolerance for knives or guns. When drug abuse is widespread, we propose zero tolerance for the presence of drugs in our schools. When there is widespread abuse of God's gift of sexuality to humans, the church and its leaders need to have the bold courage to offer clear guidelines. When norms of sexual behavior are not clearly defined, the path is paved for moral pandemonium as we have witnessed in our national church in the past year. The inconsistency is astounding, and in reality, the new policy has opened a can of worms which may never be closed.

The decision to change the policy is also premature. Despite the Righter decision and the consistent ordination of those who have chosen to be sexually active outside the bonds of holy matrimony, the church is still not of one mind on this issue. Recent surveys have shown that most Episcopalians do not support the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. Furthermore, at the last General Convention, the number of bishops who affirmed the traditional biblical stance on matters of human sexuality far outweighed, by nearly a 2-1 margin, the number of bishops who signed the Koinonia Statement.

Some will argue that renegade ordinations, much like the ordination of women in the 1970s, are required if the church is to make any headway in broadening its sexual mores. But the issues surrounding sexual orientation are not merely issues of moral piety. The issues have far more to do with biblical authority, respect for our tradition, and unity in the church.

The dean and the chair of the board noted that the decision to change the policy "...does not mean the Seminary's Board and Faculty are of one mind in the debate on the appropriate norms for sexual behavior among Christian people." Will they ignore the prophetic words of our Lord, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand ..."(Matt. 12:25)? The decision to change its policy on the norms of sexual behavior presupposes the church and the scriptures are in error in their instruction and that the church eventually will come around on this issue. To stand against the wisdom of the ages is grossly premature, especially in a time of confusion and moral chaos in the church.

The decision is disturbing because one of the most important and cherished institutions of learning within our arm of the greater body of Christ has in some sense submitted to the wave of relevance which is moving through much of our secular and religious culture. There is no question that pressure has been put on VTS to be more inclusive in its policy on sexual behavior. No one can argue with "A Call to Holy Life," unless that call is founded not upon the holy scriptures, but the current mood of the day. Yes, the new policy calls for "fidelity in ... commitments," but commitment to what? What if a young man enters his first year at the seminary "committed" to one partner, and then chooses to be "committed" to another for his second year and a third for his senior year?

Relevance will not win the world for Christ. Noted Episcopal theologian and professor Owen Thomas has written, "If the church tries too hard to make its message relevant, it may lose its message altogether and simply become a sanctification of the culture about it." There is a desperate need for the church to present itself as an alternative to the world in which we have been charged to be "in" but not "of," (cf. John 17:16; 18:36).

I have great respect for many members of its administration and faculty of VTS. The education I received has been important in living out my priestly ministry. But throughout my years there (1989-1992) the bar of expectation for discipline of mind, heart and body was never lowered. Yes, virtually every member of the community tripped on the bar from time to time (myself included). But that bar was not moved, and stood as a cornerstone from which one could learn, confess, repent and begin again.

It was Helmut Thielicke who wrote "Anybody who enters into fellowship with Jesus must undergo a transvaluation of values." Only a few years ago at VTS, it was far more important to be committed to the value of the scriptures than to the values of the surrounding culture.

In defense of VTS, the board was somewhat forced into reconsidering its policy by those who continue to turn their back on the teaching of holy scripture and the tradition of the church. The lack of leadership from our national church on these issues has been deplorable. But when one's back is to the wall, it is not necessarily appropriate to compromise. In making this decision, the board of VTS has taken one giant step forward in abdicating its role as an institution of moral formation for the future leaders of the church and it has taken a giant step backward by acquiescing to the greater culture. Both steps now put VTS at the great risk of a sad shift to relevance. o