"the 'biblical' definition of marriage and sexuality is not monolithic among Christians"

Dr. Westmoreland, 

Since I sent you a note thanking you for putting aside your personal views when presenting the Samford Together group to the faculty, I felt I needed to follow up expressing my disappointment with your unilateral decision to go against the faculty's overwhelming wish that the Board vote on formal recognition. Even if you did this out of some misguided paternalism to protect Samford Together from a rejection (or out of a desire to stave off an accompanying PR disaster for the school), your action was the wrong step. 

I will admit that personally I think the Samford Together students did not go far enough in the kind of group they wanted. But, since it was a student-led group, I was obediently staying out of the fray and letting their wishes that a dialogue group, rather than a group that took an affirming position on LGBT issues. Because, despite your implication otherwise in the video, the "biblical" definition of marriage and sexuality is not monolithic among Christians. We need a pro-LGBT group at Samford, far beyond what the ST students were asking for, precisely because "God's Truth" includes the affirming Christians of the Alliance of Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and numerous others. I pray for the day when Samford becomes comfortable embracing the wideness of God's mercy. 

A note on your rhetoric as well: your description of the group as "too polarizing" fits very well in the history of Frank Park Samford, who fought tooth and nail to keep the "polarizing" forces of integration at bay at our precious institution. I guess there is no greater testament to his legacy than for Samford Hall to continue to seek the negative peace which is the absence of tension. 

Looking forward to the day when Samford's gates are open for all. 

Bryan Kessler

Brit Blalock