The Goal of the Equality Act or The Bitter Fruits of White Christian Commitment to Segregation

 At one time, Bob Jones University believed in segregation. Interracial dating was forbidden. A university spokesman defended segregation as Biblical. Since then, the University has changed its position on segregation and allows interracial dating. While the reason for its change of stance appears to have been the unfavorable press it got after George W. Bush spoke at the college, one cannot deny that the move removes a threat to the college's ability to receive federal funding (although, in light of the looming Equality Act, that could quickly change).  A jaded observer might be tempted to assume that BJU and other schools changed their policies for convenience and money, and that similar pressures might work again, this time on the issues of same-sex marriage/sexual relationships and sex/gender transition.  

It surprises me that people are trying to force this issue. It almost seems a dog in the manger mentality, like complaining about not getting meat at a vegetarian restaurant. If you want meat, go someplace else. The schools in question are Christian schools, private schools, probably more expensive than state schools. Surely people have other options than going to such schools. There are two main reasons I can think of for why people don't just roll their eyes and leave these institutions alone: 1) Students who"come out" (to themselves, maybe to close friends) while in college (despite the conservatism of my alma mater, such a thing is possible even there, and would have probably been easier before LGBT issues became so big), 2)People want to change conservative Christians' beliefs on sexual ethics. I think the latter item is a major driver of the problem. 

Before delving into the second reason, I will make a few remarks about the first one. I understand there has been an effort to strip accreditation from Christian colleges that hold to a conservative view on sexuality. Such a move would hurt students who "come out" in college. Because I do not think we will change our views on sexuality, I believe schools like Covenant will continue with their policies even if it means losing accreditation. In such a scenario, a student whose views and ideas change while in college would be unable to transfer out of the college in which he/she started getting educated. 

Now for the second reason. Many Christians and denominations that formerly objected to interracial marriage and supported segregation have changed their minds on these issues, and that without rejecting the Bible's inerrancy. As a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, a conservative Christian denomination, I can say that I haven't heard a sound Biblical defense of segregation or condemnation of racial intermarriage. I've never heard a pastor preach against integration or against racial minorities' voting, for instance. The old support for Jim Crow is gone,  but the movement that drove it away came in my parents' lifetime. Further, I suspect that conservative Christian support of racist ideas and policies has damaged our credibility on social issues, and particularly on this issue. 

Considering the change, and the fact that it happened in so short a time, it is surprising to look back and see how adamantly some Christians, or people who called themselves Christians, declared that the Bible supported, even demanded racial segregation and condemned racial intermarriage. In this case, conservative Christians were in the wrong, and many of those who were in the right were liberal Christians. The idea that conservative Christians could be dangerously in the wrong and could use the Bible to support wrong ideas is, at least, an idea with precedent. The change in people's views may not have occurred without the political pressure and cultural shift that occurred in the wake of the Civil Rights revolution. I think some supporters of the Equality Act believe they can effect a similar change by enacting pro-LGBT laws. 

Let us do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that conservative Christian sexual ethics (no sex outside marriage between a man and a woman) are mistaken, not taught in Scripture, or, at least, wrong and dangerous somehow. Imagine that those who hold such views really are in sin the way supporters of segregation were. What motive would we expect to underlie the support of such ideas as conservative sexual ethics? We would expect such motives as pride, hatred, fear, resistance to change, perhaps an unwillingness to repent of past sins. Some people would add desire for power to the list. What result would we expect laws such as the Equality Act to have? Resisting such a law would require one to be willing to endure hardship, face criticism, possibly face misunderstanding. Schools like Covenant would have to rearrange their finances, cut costs. Students desiring to attend such schools would need to either be rich or would need to crowdfund their expenses. The school might need to require students to work for free to help with cleaning etc. Faculty and staff would have to take lower salaries. Keeping the college open without federal funds would require dedication to the college's mission, greater dedication than before. Choosing Covenant would require one to be committed to its mission. Would such motives as pride, the desire for power, hatred, pride, fear, and resistance to change be enough to keep the college going? I'd like to think not. If these motives were the motives that underlay Jim Crow, they weren't enough, at least not for most Christians. Thus, from the point of view supporters of the Equality Act are probably taking, the law they propose will probably work to change people's minds. 

So, what will happen? Because I believe conservative Christian sexual ethics are based on the Bible, I doubt supporters of the Equality Act will achieve the success they anticipate. It may be that some colleges will stop holding their staff and students to Christian sexual ethics. Such a move makes sense at those colleges that don't require staff and students to be Christians. Some colleges will refuse federal funding and keep their policies the way they are (and some may wonder why they didn't kick federal dollars sooner!). What I don't expect is that our denominations will change their doctrines for money. I expect Christians will be willing to put up with a good deal, more, even, than the Equality Act would dish out. I hope Christian persistence will prove a testimony to others and a vindication of our motives. 

A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

Follow-up

This is a follow-up on my last blog. Last time, I said I believed that religious neutrality is impossible, even in politics, and that I do not think Christians have a duty to surrender cultural power. The next question is whether Christians ought to try to set up a theocracy. I am hesitant to say so. Again, when Christianity has had, or sought, that degree or kind of cultural power, things can get ugly. I no longer believe that this ugliness is inevitable, or that Christians ought to relinquish power unless that is the only way for abuses to end. However, I am wary of any efforts to seek power, as these efforts can suffer from the pitfalls common to Transformationalism. 

Transformationalism is the idea that Christians have a duty to transform this present world. What differentiates it from ordinary political involvement? Transformationalism puts high hopes on what can be accomplished before Jesus comes back, even to the point of denying, or minimizing, any notion of the final destruction of the world and expecting that something almost akin to the New Heavens and the New Earth can be created without any such catastrophe. It usually takes one of two forms: liberal or conservative. Liberal Transformationalism focuses on alleviating poverty, and inequality, encouraging education and other social programs, and generally trying to make society and government more just and fair. Conservative Transformationalism is, I would suspect, growing rarer, but I may be wrong. At any rate, Conservative transformationalists focus on such efforts as abolishing abortion, encouraging sexual morality, and keeping Christianity in the public sphere. 

My main problem with Transformationalism is its minimizing of the notion of a final destruction of the world. While there may be legitimate interpretations of the Bible that allow for no end-of-the-world destruction, I fear people may get into Transformationalism without understanding that such a philosophy entails a particular eschatology.

My other problem is Transformationalism’s tendency to overemphasize temporal, secondary matters. Although justice and morality are both important, they are signs of bigger changes. Faith in Christ, not abstaining from abortion or refusing to participate in injustice, saves a person. However great a society human efforts can manage to produce, perfection can never be achieved as long as there are those in that society whose hearts are unchanged. Injustice and immorality both stem from a broken relationship with God, a problem which even the best laws and the most sophisticated social programs cannot fix. Conversion to Christianity is the only solution. 

I do not mean to say that Christians should not be involved in politics. I only am saying that our hope is not in any earthly government or society. We do well to improve the country where we live, but we do not put our hope in the fortunes of that country. Jesus is already King, whoever may sit in the White House. If we follow in the footsteps of Kim Davis, let us do so not to place Jesus on His throne, but to point out to our governors that Jesus is on His throne, and that doing as He says is usually a good idea.

The Ultimate Heresy

I have come to a terrible realization. It started when I was in college, particularly when I considered the intense conflict that ensues over gay rights vs. religious freedom. At first, the only thing I would admit to anyone other than myself was that religious diversity is not an ideal, that its benefit was in its preventing the problems of other ages, things such as the inquisition. I was always taught that church-state entanglements were the bane of Europe, and that the separation of church and state was, at worst, a necessary evil. But now, I'm not sure it even works. You got that right. We've been bamboozled, tricked, sold a false bill of goods. 

See, freedom of religion doesn't work. Here's why. In order to determine what to allow and what to forbid, to decide what programs to enact and which not to, and to make a myriad of other decisions, a government must have certain values. For instance, in America, we don't allow people to take what belongs to somebody else. Such a law seems elementary, obvious, but even this law relies on the notion of material ownership. We believe that people's property rights trump the needs and desires of even the most resourceful thief. Note, however, that not all religions have the same values. It only stands to reason that certain religions will be more in line with the national ideology than others. In such a situation, religious conflicts are inevitable.

As I tried to trace back the problem, to see what went wrong, allowing the present conflicts between cake bakers and certain couples, I came to see that the flaw goes to the very roots of our national foundation. We thought we could do something we couldn't. And now we are reaping the fruits. Here's why we did it: Europe had just undergone numerous conflicts over religion, specifically, over which expression of Christianity would be allowed and would have cultural power. Many people came to America to get away from laws that forbade them to worship as they saw fit. To these settlers and their descendants, religious freedom meant they could set up their own churches without restrictions.

Perhaps the first sign of trouble for the new nation came when polygamy was made illegal. Note that polygamy violates nobody's rights, provided the parties involved are all willing. It does not harm anyone. It is simply contrary to our sensibilities, to politicians at the time, downright repugnant. In a landmark case, the judge ruled that the government, if it were to govern at all, cannot accommodate everybody's conscience. Using the example of human sacrifice, he said that there are certain religious acts that the government simply cannot allow, things that cannot be allowed in a free society. Now, let us ask ourselves, why can't we allow human sacrifice in America? Because it violates an individual's right to life (unless the victim were to submit voluntarily). Even then, the idea of somebody being killed to appease a god strikes the average American as barbaric and backwards. Can a nation that calls any religious practice or belief "backward" or "quaint" or "sick" really embrace all religions?

Another blow at the notion of religious diversity was the government's venturing out into the business of children's education. While it may be possible, in theory, to govern a country with no other guide than a skeletal understanding of human rights as laid out in our foundational documents, (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.)it is not possible to run a school that way. Perhaps the most obvious manifestations of the impossibility of running a school without any governing ideology are the various conflicts over religion in public schools. While prayer in public schools is something of a side issue, controversies such as abstinence only sex education versus "safe sex" and Creation vs. Evolution, as well as the question of Intelligent Design show that the problem runs deeper. As an acolyte of the grand tradition of Reformed, Christian education, I understand that everyone has a worldview. That worldview comes out in all subjects, math, science, language arts, even foreign language studies. Education in any subject must be conducted from a broader understanding of where that subject fits into the broader scheme of the world, the universe, and everything. A historian who believes God had a hand in what happened in the world teaches history differently from one who teaches it from the premise that it is the story of human progress towards the perfect society as the most evolved beings on the planet, similar as these perspectives may seem.

Present controversies over the observance of cultural holidays with religious roots shows the impossibility of a truly cultureless society. It is much more fun to celebrate Christmas when at least eighty percent of your town is doing so, too. Holidays are perhaps the most obvious sign that religion is not, and was never meant to be, a private matter. Holidays have just that public, communal character that demands the participation of many. For example, here, in Ukraine, our family celebrates Easter when the rest of the country does, according to the Orthodox calendar. That is the day our church celebrates it, the day the rest of the city celebrates it.

While the Civil Rights Movement brought necessary changes to America, it also underscored the impossibility of ideological neutrality in a country that wants to be just, and to do right by all its citizens. The idea that certain people were not eligible for equal rights would simply not be tolerated. Justice demands it.

Now, we come to the present case. In recent times, cake bakers have refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. While it is important to note that the bakers are refusing to offer a service to a couple because they are doing something only gay people do, not because they are gay, the situation is a bit complicated. The very existence of bakers who refuse same-sex couples wedding cakes testifies to the fact that some people in this country still believe same-sex marriage is wrong. Now, if religious objection to same-sex marriage were just as bad as racism (something I don't believe), then tolerating such an objection would be quite a concession to make, if such a concession can even be condoned. It seems many gay-rights activists would have religious objection to homosexual practice relegated to the same rubbish bin to which we have, for the past fifty years, trying to relegate racism. In the case of racism, such efforts are commendable, (provided they are characterized by a charitable mien towards those one is trying to correct). In the case of objection to homosexual practice, I cannot say the same. On the one hand, we have people who see as an injustice moral objection to same-sex marriage, while, on the other, we have people who feel they must maintain the position that such marriage is wrong if they are to be faithful to their creeds.

The issue has again come up in the furor over Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and her preventing others in her office from issuing such licenses. While objection to the extent of her civil disobedience is understandable, while disagreement with her interpretation of the Bible is understandable, many of the things people on the internet are saying about her go beyond simple disagreement. The vibe I sense is contempt, contempt for this woman's principles automatically translating into contempt for her decision about how to live by them.

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is there room for both parties in the same country? I don't know. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't, but I don't know what to do about it. Seizing political power at the expense of other religions does not seem a very Christian thing to do, yet surrendering power in favor of lies merely because of a political dogma that has proved faulty looks just about as bad.

Why Christians eat pork, or A discussion of the misuse of Leviticus in discussions of homosexuality.

In the current debate over sexual mores, I have all too often seen people accusing Christians of hypocrisy for not keeping the Old Testament Laws. This accusation directly results from the use of a verse in Leviticus directly forbidding sexual relations between males. Now, I believe it is foolish for Christians to use this verse in public and political debates over human sexuality. Christians’ relationship to the Old Testament laws is a complicated topic, not one suited for the shallow, if-it-doesn’t-fit-on-a-sign-it’s-too-long atmosphere of the political debate environment. 

Despite the complexity of the topic, I will venture to explain the role of the Old Testament law for Christians. Please remember that the topic is not simple, so bear with me and have patience. Also, I understand that the view I will put forth here is strictly Reformed, not the same view as that held by certain other groups. However, my explanation should help clear the charge of hypocrisy. First, a general overview of Christian history.

The general narrative on which Christians base their faith divides history into the time before Christ and the time after Him. This first period is further divided by several vital events. Perhaps the most formative of these is the Fall, Adam and Eve’s eating the Forbidden Fruit. The Fall is credited with casing all (or most of) the problems people encounter. Because of the Fall, people could no longer live in harmony with God or with each other. God did not want to leave us to this predicament, and determined to rescue us, even though we had caused the difficulty. 

The Flood is another event of importance, although it merely serves to show how bad humanity can get. Some time after the Flood, God chose Abraham and his family to be a chosen nation, the nation of Israel. It was to this nation, after they were freed from slavery in Egypt, that God gave the law, of which Leviticus is a part. The law was pretty extensive, including laws and rules for most activities. Even the fabrics people could wear was regulated, as well as the food they could eat, and the way they would deal with such problems as mildew or sickness. 

Some time after the nation of Israel arrived in their land, they set up a king, but only after they had attempted to live without one and experienced anarchy and difficulty.  Already, though, they had begun compromising their religion by syncretism. Even under their kings, they would worship God along with the deities of the surrounding peoples, a practice which had been forbidden. Finally, as punishment, they were conquered and deported. 

Although some Israelites did manage to return to their land and rebuild their temple, the glory days of Israel were pretty much over. Except for some brief periods, Israel was the subject of one empire after another, finally coming under Rome. In such circumstances, the civil laws God laws God had given them could not be enforced as they had been when Israel had been free. The Romans were the law, and they did not always care about violations of Jewish mores. 

It was at this time that Jesus was born, lived, died, and came back to life. He did not establish a government or rid Israel of Roman authority. Instead, the story ends with both Jews and non-Jews, man of them Romans, following Jesus. The New Testament ends with a rather cryptic account of visions and dreams, many of them revealing the future. 

The crux (no pun intended) of the matter is the issue of fulfillment. Reformed Christians believe that the Old Testament laws were a representation of something which did not yet exist when the laws were given. The whole Old Testament speaks of what would one day come to pass with the coming of Jesus. Thus, new symbols have been given to the church, most of them looking backwards, not forwards, symbols replacing the old ones laid down. Israel pretty much always struggled to keep the law, never fully succeeding. Thus, they were shown the inability of humanity to keep God’s law and the need for atonement. 

The New Testament repeatedly teaches that the Christian no longer is bound by certain Old Testament laws. In Mark 7:14-19 Jesus sets aside the rigorous purity laws. In Acts 10:10-16, the apostle Peter has a vision in which God practically tells him to eat unclean food. After this vision, Peter goes to the house of a Gentile, something devout Jews at that time believed to be wrong. Further, the elders of the early church soon determine that Gentile believers need not keep the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (Act 15:1-35). Thus, many Christians eat pork, wear clothes of blended fabrics, and do not consider themselves unclean during menstruation. 

Why then, one may well ask, do Christians consider homosexual behavior to be wrong? Certain New Testament passages, such as Romans 1: 26-27 seem to indicate that homosexual behavior is not natural. For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I expect the Church’s long tradition of disapproval of homosexual behavior probably stands as a strong reason to still consider it wrong. Also, the sexual acts which the Old Testament laws forbid are mostly taboo among modern Christians. One notable exception is the prohibition against having sexual relations with a woman while she is on her period. However the New Testament passages should be understood or applied, it would be best not to use Old Testament passages to condemn homosexual behavior, as doing so has caused confusion for those unfamiliar with the more complicated points of Christian doctrine and has brought undeserved ridicule to the Church.

A Christmas Meditation

Some people cite the date of Christmas as evidence of a pagan origin or a pagan nature.  It is not only true that the date of our present Christmas celebration is probably not the day Jesus was born, it is also true that December 25 was a feast for various pagan religions. The day's association with the solstice seems, to some people's minds, to be a sign either that Christmas is not about Jesus or that Christmas is merely a carryover from pagan times. Such understandings fall short of the truth.

To properly understand the concept of having Christmas on the 25th, we must understand the mindset of the culture at the time when the date was fixed. People in the late Roman Empire were more dependent on the natural cycle than we are today.  Although urbanites were less dependent than rural people, the dependence was still a reality for those who lived in cities. Nowadays, one can purchase fresh fruits and vegetables out of season. For many modern people, such delights as tomatoes, cucumbers, and lettuce form a part of the diet year round. In the late Roman Empire, people could only eat either what was in season, what could be stored long-term, or what could be brought from other climates quickly enough that it would not spoil along the way.

The religions from which these people converted associated the natural cycle with their myths. The story of Hades and Persephone explained the existence of winter and spring among the Greeks. Among the Norse, the tale of Balder performed a similar function. One linked the events of myth to natural cycles, not necessarily to historical dates.

A similar phenomenon was actually present in the Old Testament. The feast of Pentecost occurred around the first harvest. The Israelites celebrated the New Moons. I believe that it is no coincidence that a mass conversion occurred on Pentecost.

By choosing to institute Christmas on the solstice, the church authorities were connecting Jesus' birth not to pagan mythology but to the solstice itself, to the darkest day and the day when the daylight hours begin to lengthen. In choosing to celebrate Christmas around the solstice, Christians were treating the date mythically, not historically. They were not saying that Jesus' birth was not a historical event. They were simply saying that it was more than just a historical event. It is an event which defines present life in a way which other events do not. Thus, it has special significance.

 There is a real symbolism in the choice. Jesus came when Israel was only a wraith of its former self. It had come back from exile, but it had come under Roman rule, it no longer had the Ark of the Covenant, and it lacked prestige. It was at such a low point that Jesus came, a paradox of light only coming at the darkest place.