Senior A.J. Hawks leads Wednesday Chapel
The first student to ever lead a Wednesday Chapel, A.J. Hawks spoke on the need for transparency among Christians, illustrated by his own story of being gay at Pepperdine.
Graphic: What was your journey of revealing what you’re going through in such a public way?
A.J. Hawks: I knew that I did not want to do that intense of a form of ministry with so much influence and then have people find out later and then feel like they were misled. It was just clearly necessary. It was the most honest thing to do, and it served the greater purpose of communicating the message.
G: As you were sharing with your friends, how were you received?
AH: Actually, I have been really blessed by my friend groups. I have friends that disagree with my position on it morally or disagree with this part or that part or have a hard time with it personally, but I’ve never had anyone be derogatory or offensive or even really upset. In my opinion, I’ve been really protected by God’s providence in that case because it’s not common to have such a smooth transition.
G: From where would you draw biblical support for the message that Christians ought to live transparently with each other?
AH: I think it’s an inherent requirement for what we see in Philippians 2, which is what I was advocating. Paul clearly radiates the idea that they lived transparent lives. In 2 Corinthians 6, he says, “We have been completely honest with you.” You see it consistently developing out the text, but not explicitly in the text. The early church’s concept of confession was communal confession, and we’ve moved away from that. It is clearly necessary to have that kind of community that is throughout the New Testament, and Paul serves as an example of that and says to imitate him as much as he imitates Christ.
G: What is your reaction to Reach OUT’s efforts?
AH: I think I frustrated a lot of the gay community at Pepperdine when I sat down with [Reach OUT co-president] Lindsay [Jakows] and told her that I did not support Reach OUT’s petition to become a group on campus. I think that Pepperdine needs an LGBT group, but I am of the opinion that the decision that was made by that board was not simply based on the grounds that it was an LGBT group or based on certain verses in the Bible. I don’t think the heart in any of it is “homosexuality is sinful, therefore we will not have a gay group.” I think it’s been wildly misconstrued, and I think that it’s sort of ironic and almost hypocritical that while pushing for transparency and authenticity we misconstrue what’s actually happening. And I think a lot of the information that’s out there is just false and is deceiving, coming from Reach OUT and how they’re reacting to the rejection. And I also think that it’s fair to recognize that Pepperdine does hold a certain position and that they have the right to that position. I think that there is a way for the to hold that position while also being respectful. But to make it sound like it’s a bunch of hateful, homophobic people doing this is, I think, one, to oversimplify a debate that, as the gay community should know, can’t afford to be oversimplified, and two, is just unfair and disrespectful to other people just like ourselves.
G: Do you think that the University an/or the church need to change their doctrine on homosexuality in order to care for LGBT members of their community?
AH: I don’t. I think on the one hand, I have experienced in my life, many of my friends who are more conservative Christians and believe that homosexuality is a sin have strong stances of a certain orientation and are very open about that, yet I’ve been very ministered to by them, and they clearly care about me and are interested in being a part of my life. It is possible, if it 
were a sin, just to love that person. And we do that every day. We call it grace. On the other hand, regardless of if it is a sin, I do think that the adjustment that needs to be made within the church is that we need to realize that the concept — as much as we dislike it — is that not all Bible verses are created equal. Jesus himself says to the Pharisees that they neglect the major matters of the law that they’re straining for gnats and let through a camel. That’s not to say that there isn’t a gnat and that it wouldn’t be better to get the gnat out of your meal, but it’s more important to get the camel.
G: This morning you talked to people who are the listeners in these exchanges. If someone is a listener, what is the way to bring scripture into a conversation without sounding condescending or minimizing their situation?
AH: Number one, people just need to listen and actually listen and shut their mouths. But then if you’re going to respond and try to share scripture in a way that will be impactful and not offensive … would be with explaining how you have seen that to be true in your life. Because I don’t think that you can expect them to accept your criticism unless you have illustrated that you are aware of your own failings.
G: Where would you draw the line between caring for someone who’s struggling and enabling a behavior that may be harmful?
AH: You cannot be responsible for enabling their sin, but you also need to care for somebody. What enabling looks like is different depending on what it is and depending on the person. And I also think if you actually want to make a difference, you need to speak with wisdom. What I mean by that is if you say the same thing over and over again, it’s going to be like the whir in the background. If you never say something, they’re never going to hear you. Part of our ministry is to look for the right time and the right place, and having the patience and forbearing to know how to wait for the right time and place.
I am totally confused by A.J.’s reaction to Reach OUT’s efforts. Who has been “misconstruing what is actually happening”? What information has been “false” and “deceiving”? No one ever said that Pepperdine’s decision was “simply based on the grounds that it was an LGBT group or based on certain verses in the Bible”.
We all know why Pepperdine rejected Reach OUT. The University clearly communicated the reason in a formal statement. Per Mark Davis, “Providing official recognition to a LGBT group that does not clearly affirm the traditional sexual ethic will imply to many that Pepperdine is not honoring our affiliation with the Churches of Christ. The Board and Administration have the responsibility to ensure that this relationship remains strong, and they support the decision made by Student Affairs.” In other words, the Board decided to reject Reach OUT because they didn’t want to hurt their relationship with the Churches of Christ. Reach OUT knows this. In fact, they have it posted verbatim on their Facebook page.
So, I agree that Student Affairs and the Board of Regents are not “a bunch of hateful, homophobic people”. However, adopting discriminatory policies is still morally wrong. If their motive was to avoid negative perceptions and disapproval from friends – simply makes it an act of cowardice. Respectfully, there is no polite way for me recite the University’s rationale and critique it.
Dean Davis added in another Graphic article:
From the administration’s perspective, the issue remains how Reach OUT will align with the Pepperdine mission and tradition. While Davis acknowledged that the relationship with the Churches of Christ is important, more central is honoring the biblical conviction that sexual activity should be reserved for a husband-wife relationship. “Pepperdine seeks to be faithful to this teaching because we believe it is God’s will,” Davis said, “and therefore we cannot endorse another view or take a neutral position on sexual morality.”
Sounds more like conviction than cowardice. Why not show respect for other convictions?
Because it is no longer respectable to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. Being gay is an immutable human characteristic that has no bearing on someone’s ability to contribute to society. Discriminating against gay students is as immoral and wicked as denying rights to women or African-Americans – particularly knowing that these students face higher rates of depression, loneliness and suicide.
I appreciate that A.J. Hawks is a young man who’s views have been (and likely still are) evolving. But, I am disappointed by his stance on Reach OUT’s efforts. I shudder to think what Jim Crowe laws would still exist if more African-Americans at the time had said: “I don’t support the Civil Rights Act. Private restaurants hold a certain position and they have a right to that position. They should be allowed to make Black people use separate bathrooms and deprive them of certain services based on biblical mission and tradition.”
Thank you for correcting me on the point that cowardice was an “important” factor in the University’s decision, while biblical literalism was a “central” factor. I find it disturbing that any modern University still affirms that we can find more reliable information about human sexuality from a bronze-age creation myth…rather than the pursuit of rigorous academic disciplines like biology and psychology. It makes our Graduate School of Education and Psychology look like a joke within the academic community.
It is respectable to hold to your personal and your church’s convictions about what God’s word teaches regarding the immorality of gay sex. It is respectable for a private Christian university to state its beliefs and let others decide if they want to be a part of the community.
You assume the Bible is a myth–that’s your choice. But others choose to believe the Bible is the word of God. Respect their choice. And respect religious freedom and freedom of association. America was founded on religious freedom and from the beginning private Christian universities were formed by believers and churches and have been allowed to decide how to stand firm on their religious convictions without interference from government or outside forces. So what if the culture doesn’t approve. Welcome to America. We value diversity.
Who said Pepperdine condemns being gay? Didn’t they just let a gay student speak in chapel? It teaches that gay sex is wrong just like premarital sex is wrong and adultery is wrong. It doesn’t endorse a group that is part of the campaign to force religious institutions to relinquish its convictions. Why are you trying to force your beliefs on everyone else? You should respect the diversity of higher education and Pepperdine’s religious freedom rather than mocking it.
No, it is not respectable to hold on to a belief in the absence of evidence. Beliefs don’t merit automatic respect because some beliefs are immoral, evil, or just plain stupid. Beliefs may be able to earn a person’s respect, but it’s an abdication of moral and intellectual responsibility to automatically accord the same respect to all beliefs.
In this instance, your belief that 1) there is a god and 2) said deity frowns upon gay sex… doesn’t have a shred of verifiable evidence to support it and is unworthy of my respect. I respect your right to believe whatever irrational nonsense you want. But, I don’t have to respect your specific beliefs. Your truth claims should be subject to the scrutiny within the marketplace of ideas with no immunity to criticism, satire, or mocking.
I assume we’ll have some campus polling data soon which will demonstrate who’s beliefs are being forced upon “everyone else”.
Did you attend Pepperdine knowing that it was a Christian university? Why you are so set on changing an institution that believes truth is not limited to science? Isn’t that what makes a Christian university unique?
Yes, I attended Pepperdine knowing that was affiliated with the Churches of Christ (not Church-controlled) but that only a small minority of the student body was from this denomination.
Did you attend Pepperdine knowing that was a National University where there is free speech, open dialogue about the religiosity of the University, and a heterogeneous student body with a general aversion to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
I have advocated for change in certain policies because I love Pepperdine and want to see it succeed and advance. Also, I care about equality, human dignity, and the rigorous pursuit of truth through rigorous investigation. Dogmatic resistance to any new evidence or moral arguments that conflict with Biblical literalism is NOT what makes a Christian university unique and relevant.
Then you know that Pepperdine is run by a board entrusted to keep it Christian while maintaining academic excellence. You don’t think it can do both. Many supporters do. They too care about equality, human dignity, and the rigorous pursuit of truth. They see no reason for Pepperdine to change its stance on sexual morality. Just because Pepperdine doesn’t endorse the sexual revolution doesn’t make them haters. It makes them unique in a world that has lost its way.
Let’s see if the evidence supports your view or if this is another one of your irrational beliefs.
Academic excellence: According to the USNWR rankings, Pepperdine has actually dropped from 47th in the nation in 2003 to 55th in the nation in 2012 . I know that rankings are imperfect, but they are comparing quantitative metrics of institutional and academic strength.
CoC Affiliation: At Seaver, the proportion of freshmen from the Churches of Christ fell from 26 percent in 2003 to less than 15 percent in 2011.
Ummm, I’m not seeing how the Board is effectively keeping the University distinctively Church of Christ while maintaining academic excellence. The data indicates that they are slipping in both arenas.
Again, approving Reach OUT is not an endorsement of sexual activity of any kind. Gay-Straight Alliances don’t want to persuade you and others to engage in gay sex. They work to educate their peers to stop homophobia in schools and to create a safe space to meet.
The world has not lost its way. It has progressively chipped away at legal and social discrimination against women, blacks, Jews, Catholics…and finally…gays. The march of equality is a sign of human progress and tolerance.
Not a very strong case, Nick. No one who knows the meaning of academic excellence would point to USNWR, especially since a subjective reputational survey ranking accounts for 25 percent of a college’s score.
Pepperdine’s relationship with Churches of Christ can’t be boiled down to its percentage of students. From the new 2020 strategic plan on Pepperdine’s website, its commitment to its heritage and the broader Christian community is stronger than ever: “The University will . . . strengthen its ties to Churches of Christ by reaffirming the University’s relationship to the Church, by renewing the commitment to recruit students from Churches of Christ and other Christian communions, and by hiring and mentoring staff and faculty from Churches of Christ and other Christian fellowships.”
Pepperdine’s board isn’t trying to keep it Church of Christ. It’s keeping it Christian. History shows that Christian universities are more likely to stay Christian if they are affiliated with a denomination that helps keep it anchored to the Christian faith rather than selling its soul for academic rankings and secular acceptance.
Anyone who reads Reach OUT’s Facebook wall knows that it celebrates gay relationships–including gay sex–as morally acceptable. Pepperdine is wise not to fall for the “we have no position” argument. Of course they do. You have to be blind not to see it. By not giving official recognition to Reach OUT, all Pepperdine is saying is that it doesn’t endorse the morality of gay sexual relationships. Pepperdine isn’t homophobic. If it was it would have kicked Reach OUT off campus like many more conservative Christian schools do.
The march of equality cannot trample over religious freedom without being guilty of the same discrimination it so disdains. You need to be more tolerant, Nick.