WACO, Texas – Baylor University recently made headlines by rejecting a $643,401 grant from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, sparking intense discussion on the intersection of faith and academic research.
On June 30, the university initially accepted the grant to study the “disenfranchisement and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals and women within congregations,” under the project titled Courage from the Margins: Inclusion and Belonging Practices for LGBTQIA+ and Women in Congregations.
In a now-deleted June 30 announcement, Baylor said the grant, awarded by the left-leaning Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, would “help us better understand the disenfranchisement and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals and women within congregations to nurture institutional courage and foster change.” The Christian university is now saying it has entirely rescinded its acceptance of the grant after witnessing “concern and confusion” from the school’s community, partners and supporters.
“We remain committed to providing a loving and caring community for all – including our LGBTQIA+ students – because it is part and parcel of our University’s mission that calls us to educate our students within a caring Christian community,” the university’s Wednesday announcement reads. “As we reviewed the details and process surrounding this grant, our concerns did not center on the research itself, but rather on the activities that followed as part of the grant. Specifically, the work extended into advocacy for perspectives on human sexuality that are inconsistent with Baylor’s institutional policies, including our Statement on Human Sexuality.”
Although Baylor lauded the grant’s mission—aimed at providing training resources for churches and investigating feelings of “institutional betrayal”—the institution faced swift and vocal criticism from its conservative Baptist base. Expecting the worst from left-leaning influences, alumni and donors expressed concern that the study might transcend research into agenda-driven advocacy.
President Linda Livingstone and administrators clarified that their concern was not about academic research but about “activities that followed as part of the grant,” which they considered inconsistent with Baylor’s Statement on Human Sexuality. The statement, last updated in 2009, affirms that sexual activity should only occur within heterosexual marriage and prohibits advocacy for views contrary to this biblical teaching.
In response to backlash, the university rescinded the grant acceptance. Dean Jon Singletary and principal investigator Dr. Gaynor Yancey “voluntarily offered to rescind their acceptance” and return all funds to the foundation. Baylor issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to its Christian mission: “We affirm the biblical understanding of human sexuality as a gift from God,” urging purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman.
The swift reversal has drawn praise from conservative Christian circles. Texas-based influencers like Megan Basham cautioned that accepting such grants risked undermining the university’s religious foundations. One commentator noted, “Cal… The very name… is so nakedly tendentious that it was obviously going to be a piece of woke advocacy. As a generic Christian I am glad to see it rejected”.
Conversely, the foundation expressed disappointment in Baylor’s decision. The Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation emphasized its long history of supporting Baylor, from the Truett Seminary to the Center for Entrepreneurship. Its board stated that the decision followed “a pressure campaign from groups with a political agenda” and lamented the lost opportunity for churches to gain research-based resources.
Baylor’s reversal highlights a deeper tension within Christian higher education—how to remain faithful to Scripture while engaging complex societal issues. The university has defended its stand, asserting that no core beliefs have changed and framing the episode as guided by its Baptist identity.
Concerns about advocacy versus academic research ran high from the start. Though the stated goal was to develop resources to help congregations foster belonging, critics argued that the language around “institutional betrayal” and “trauma-informed resources” echoed activist priorities.
In this context, the importance of due diligence by trustees and administrators becomes clearer. According to statements, grant proposals undergo review by officials—including at Research-1 universities like Baylor—but critics suggest that upper administration may not have fully grasped the grant’s broader cultural implications.
My view is that Baylor has shown strength and wisdom in its reversal. The institution acted consistently with its convictions and respected its supporters. Returning the money, under pressure or voluntarily, reinforced its adherence to faith-based standards. It demonstrates that religious universities can engage in research—but only within biblical guides—not to promote secular social agendas.
Still, questions linger: how should faith-based institutions approach sensitive topics? Might Baylor pursue alternate studies that explore societal challenges without crossing boundaries of immorality or doctrinal compromise? Opportunities exist for carefully framed research—such as examining how churches minister to all individuals while upholding biblical truths.
Alumni and donors will closely watch Baylor’s next steps. The decision strengthens the trust of supporters who fear mission drift, but it may dampen enthusiasm among moderate constituencies who hoped for greater engagement with wider cultural issues—minus doctrinal concessions.
Ultimately, Baylor’s response signals its determination to uphold its identity over external or cultural pressures. Its leadership prioritized institutional integrity and contributed clarity about the role of academic inquiry within faith contexts. Most importantly, it conveyed a message: research must not come at the cost of doctrinal fidelity.
This episode reflects a broader moment for Christian higher education: balancing rigorous study and cultural awareness against a backdrop of biblical authority. Baylor’s decision argues that the university—and others—can do research that informs and strengthens the church, but never at the expense of core convictions.
The story continues to unfold, as observers debate whether the university’s reversal marks a reaffirmation of mission or a signal of vulnerability to external pressure. Still, one thing is clear: Baylor’s leadership chose faithfulness over optics. The return of the grant was more than financial—it was symbolic of steadfast adherence to biblical sexuality and institutional purpose.