Christian lecturer to challenge tribunal decision after being sacked by Bible College for X post on human sexuality

Today, (22 Jan), a Christian theologian, lecturer, and father of six will appear before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on Thursday 22 January 2026, having been granted limited permission to appeal the decision from the Employment Tribunal, he now seeks further permission to allow further grounds of appeal.

The Sheffield Tribunal upheld his dismissal from a Bible college for a social media post expressing widely held evangelical Christian beliefs on human sexuality.

Dr Aaron Edwards, formerly a lecturer at Cliff College in Derbyshire, is supported in his appeal by lawyers from the Christian Legal Centre. He argues that he was discriminated against, harassed, and unfairly dismissed for articulating a theological position consistent with mainstream global Christianity, a view expressed in a personal capacity during a wider national church debate.

The impact of Dr Edwards’ dismissal by Cliff College has had a significant impact on him and his family. He has not been employed as a Bible College lecturer since, and evidence presented in court in June 2024 revealed he was admitted to hospital with cardiac symptoms due to stress.

Following his sacking, he and his wife, then parents to five young children, were forced to move out of their home and rely on crowdfunding to cover basic living costs while making new long-term plans.

After taking legal action on the grounds of discrimination, harassment, victimisation and breaches of Dr Edwards’ human rights, an Employment Tribunal, without truly engaging with the issues at the heart of the case, ruled that Cliff College acted “reasonably” in dismissing Dr Edwards for misconduct, claiming the college needed to protect its “brand and reputation.”

Now, at this week’s Rule 3(10) hearing, Dr Edwards will renew his application for permission to appeal a ruling where his lawyers will argue that the Employment Tribunal (ET) made serious errors of law, failing to apply binding principles on freedom of expression and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 9 & 10) and the Equality Act 2010.

Lawyers are expected to say that the Tribunal ignored binding principles established in landmark cases such as Higgs v Farmor’s School and Eweida v UK, which require robust protection for freedom of expression and religion, especially where views relate to public debate and theological matters.

The EAT in Higgs affirmed that beliefs cannot be suppressed merely for causing controversy and warned against institutions succumbing to a “heckler’s veto”, where public hostility determines the legitimacy of someone’s expression.

“Christian Justice Matters”

Speaking ahead of the hearing, Dr Edwards said:

“My legal case is essentially about challenging compromise. Cliff College seems to think you can still brand yourself “evangelical” while thinking or saying nothing about the threat to the Gospel posed by the radical incursions of LGBT ideology into previously faithful denominations, churches, and colleges today. They fail to see that compromise is “a gospel issue”.

“While the Court of Appeal granted us a hearing on select grounds, this week’s hearing is about our refusal to compromise on the grounds of appeal hitherto denied us. This includes the relevance of the expert report that was compiled for the initial tribunal two years ago, and which demonstrated in detail how my tweet was not simply the expression of a fringe personal belief, but was what most evangelical Christians believe about homosexuality, sin, and the Gospel.

“I hope and pray for justice this week.”

 Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, commented:

“Dr Edwards was dismissed for expressing an entirely mainstream Christian belief grounded in biblical morality. This is not a marginal or extremist view, but one protected under UK equality and human rights law.

The Tribunal accepted that Cliff College acted to protect its ‘brand’. But no institution that identifies as a Bible college can lawfully justify disciplinary action by distancing itself from the very beliefs it exists to teach. Reputational concern is not a legitimate basis for penalising protected Christian expression.

This case raises serious questions about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the lawful limits of institutional authority. If Christian academics cannot express orthodox Christian convictions in so-called Christian institutions without fear of sanction, then the legal protections afforded to religious belief are being hollowed out. We will stand with Aaron until justice is done.”

Background: What sparked the case?

In February 2023, amid national debate within the Church of England on same-sex marriage and blessings, Dr Edwards posted a tweet articulating a theological concern shared by many evangelicals:

“Homosexuality is invading the Church. Evangelicals no longer see the severity of this b/c they’re busy apologising for their apparently barbaric homophobia, whether or not it’s true. This is a ‘Gospel issue’, by the way. If sin is no longer sin, we no longer need a Saviour.”

He clarified that the tweet was directed to fellow believers, not individuals personally, and expressed a doctrinal conviction rather than personal animosity. He later tweeted:

“That is the conservative view. The acceptance of homosexuality as ‘not sinful’ is an invasion upon the Church, doctrinally. This is not controversial. The acceptance is controversial. Most of the global Church would agree. It is not homophobic to declare homosexuality sinful.”

A Twitter storm followed. Dr Edwards insisted, and clarified in subsequent tweets, that the post was not ‘homophobic’ and that it was addressed to evangelicals who agree with his message, but felt they couldn’t say so for fear of backlash.

Furthermore, he added that the aggressive response to the tweet illustrated the problem it addressed.

Instead of supporting Dr Edwards’ freedom to share a Christian evangelical perspective on these issues, Cliff College, which holds itself out as an Evangelical Methodist College, released a statement which publicly disowned him and sought to solicit complaints. Before the Tribunal it was said that the College had thrown Dr Edwards under the bus.

They asked Dr Edwards to take the post down, which he refused to do as he believed doing so would go against his conscience and be an admission that he had intended to deliberately cause trouble for the college. However, he repeatedly tweeted following the maelstrom that the views expressed in the tweet were his own and not that of the college. Further he clarified that the tweet was an expression of a deeply held belief which he believed was necessary to express.

Following an investigation and disciplinary hearing, however, Dr Edwards was sacked for misconduct for “bringing the college into disrepute”.

Controversial appeal process

The full employment tribunal hearing in May 2024, had also revealed that after Dr Edwards had been sacked, his appeal was heard by Rev. Michaela Youngson, a former President of the Methodist Conference and senior member of the Methodist Church of Great Britain’s Connexional Team.

Rev. Youngson had dismissed Dr Edwards’ appeal on every ground and described herself in evidence as ‘independent’.

Evidence was admitted as part of the case, however, which revealed that Rev. Youngson is a leading founder of the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT+ Lives and has appeared at gay pride London events next to a sign which says: ‘Nowt as Queer as Methodists’.

The Global Interfaith Commission was founded by LGBT activist and member of the Church of England’s general synod, Jayne Ozanne.

The aim of the commission is to: ‘provide a strong and authoritative voice from religious leaders across the global faith community who wish to affirm and celebrate the dignity of all, independent of a person’s sexuality, gender expression and gender identity.’

The Commission is managed by the now defunct Ozanne Foundation, which has aggressively campaigned for same-sex marriages to be introduced to places of worship and which would be diametrically opposed to Dr Edwards’ beliefs and position on the issues.

However, on this issue, Employment Judge Jim Shepherd, who presided over the hearing Dr Edwards is appealing, concluded that: “The Tribunal is satisfied that the appeal appeared to be dealt with impartially…”