Reading Narnia in Time of War

Narnia is a part of my childhood. When I was about four or five years old, my Dad started reading us the Narnia books, recording his reading for our later enjoyment. His recordings became a family treasure, affording numerous hours of entertainment as we re-listened to them. These dear stories recall days of happiness, family unity, home life, and peace; but the books themselves cover themes that are anything but halcyon. The series starts out (if you start with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) with themes of war, tyranny, and repression. And it is in a time when all three are very much alive in our world that I have begun sharing these same books with others, this time as a tool for learning English. 

Before February of 2022, I lived in Odessa, Ukraine, and taught literature and history at a small school for the children of missionaries. When the threat of war became severe, I relocated with my family to a smaller town near the Romanian border. When Russia attacked, we fled to Romania. We were able to finish out the school year online, but, since our last day of school in 2022, that school has not functioned. We have instead worked to help and support the numerous other people who also fled from Ukraine to Romania. One service we offer is English lessons. And one resource I have used with several of my students is the Narnia series. 

The first book in the Narnia series (according to the order in which the books were written, not the order of the events in the books), includes a reference to the evacuation of children from London to the more peaceful countryside. I remember my father explaining to me about Hitler and the bombing of Britain, but air raids were a far away reality. Now, when I read that opening paragraph, my students generally ask me what the word "air raid" means, not because they don't know what an air raid is, but because they don't know the English word. I answer with a term that is now all too common in Ukraine. Those who left after the attacks started, or those who have been back, know the meaning of "air raid" even better than that. 

The concept of evacuation is also all too familiar. Many families are living separated. Since male Ukrainian citizens may not leave the country (a few exceptions exist), most of those living in this new diaspora are women and, like the Pevensies, children. At times, people's new living situations have brought opportunities for fun as well as grief. At one point, numerous Ukrainian families were living in the same complex, creating a kind of village. Children were able to go freely about, playing with friends. 

This same book also echoes the horrors of enemy occupation. When we first enter Narnia, it is occupied by an unlawful, repressive ruler. Although the book does not give a picture of anything like the horrors of Russian occupation, it does give a picture of a tyrant and the hope of liberation. 

With most of my students, when we finished The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, we did not continue with other Narnia books. But with one student, I have continued into Prince Caspian. Like the previous book, this book has Narnia occupied, this time by humans. These humans have not only conquered but displaced the native inhabitants, the talking animals, dwarfs, fauns, centaurs, etc. They have been killed off, and those who survive have been driven into hiding. The rulers covered up the crime. They denied that such creatures had ever existed in Narnia. I discussed this state of affairs with my student. It was then that we both used a word I had never before associated with Narnia; the word genocide. This word is all too familiar to Ukrainian people. Although Putin is not succeeding at getting rid of the Ukrainian people, his rhetoric, and the rhetoric of others in his following, shows a desire to get rid of Ukrainians. I will not go into the horrible details here, but they exist for those with the stomach to read them. The supreme irony is that this genocide goes on under the cover of "de-Nazification," in other words, opposition to a regime and a philosophy that has become synonymous with genocide. 

Not only is the act of genocide a relevant concept in this war, so is misinformation and repression of speech. In Prince Caspian, the titular prince's nurse is sent away when the king, Caspian's uncle, finds out she has been telling her nursling stories of the true history of Narnia. Later, the prince's tutor refuses to openly tell him the true history, warning him that, if he does so, they will both be punished. (He later tells Prince Caspian about Narnia's true history, but only at night when they are in a place far from prying ears. )In Russia, a similar situation exists. A child drew a picture critical of the war. She was taken from her father, and her father was placed under house arrest. Ukrainians with friends or relatives in Russia find that these people do not want to talk about the war. Some even refuse to believe that their friends or relatives in Ukraine are being bombed, instead quoting Russian propaganda. Anyone who has looked at Twitter posts about the war has seen how many people (or bots) are spewing misinformation about the war, and how many people are believing it. 

No doubt, as I continue on this journey through books dear to me since my early years, I will see other connections. But perhaps the most important connection is the call to be strong, to do right, and to believe in God in the face of trouble and evil. Let us answer that call. 

A Conservative Christian Case for Supporting Ukraine

  There was a time when many American Communist sympathizers praised the Soviet Union. They saw it as an embodiment of their ideals and an inspiration. When accounts of Soviet atrocities came out, they were skeptical. Many refused to believe in the horrors of Stalin’s repression despite repeated proofs. These people blinded themselves to the truth of what was going on in Russia and other Eastern European countries. Their willful blindness was wrong. I am afraid that many Republicans are making the same mistake. 

Today is the one year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While the official stance of the United States has been one of support, many in the United States, notably Donald Trump, have questioned US support for Ukraine. Some on the right even sympathize with Putin. I am very concerned about this stance. I am concerned that my political party (the only time I voted, I voted Republican) is taking a turn away from what is right. 

My case for supporting Ukraine is based on Conservative ideas that I hold dear. The first is patriotism. We on the Right tend to be patriotic, especially in the face of criticisms of our nation. People may try to use the nation’s sins to discredit the United States and undermine the love of country. We are concerned that the next generation have a love for their nation that will inspire them to work for its good in the future. Support for Ukraine is a patriotic thing to do. In the first place, support for Ukraine honors our history as a nation that fights for freedom. How can we praise people like Patrick Henry, who would die rather than be denied freedom, and have no sympathy with a nation of people who are facing the same choice? How can we forget the invaluable support France gave our nation? Is not supporting another country in its fight for freedom and democracy a superb way to pass on the favor? Can we, as Americans, be indifferent when another nation longs for independence and Democracy? We have never been ones to roll over and die in the face of aggression. How can we expect that of others? Are we not proud of our history? Do we not see the same spirit in the Ukrainians? 

    Conservative media has undermined support for Ukraine by spreading ideas critical of the behavior of the United States. While it is acceptable to criticize our nation when it has done wrong, the talk in this instance seems more befitting to our enemies than to our friends. I am talking about the biolab rumor. The story goes that the United States has been secretly funding laboratories in Ukraine, perhaps for the purpose of producing biological weapons. The insinuation is that Russia invaded because the United States was helping Ukraine produce biological weapons to hurt Russia. While I think this idea is a piece of Kremlin propaganda, I will not expect my readers to take that view. Let us suppose, instead, that the United States were really funding biological laboratories in Ukraine. Let us even assume these laboratories really were an international threat, producing biological weapons against Russia. In that case, I have some questions. Russia's response indicates a belief that the United States is an enemy. That means Russia is an enemy of the United States (or so it sees itself). Why are we siding with our enemy in this matter? While there may be reasons for a true patriot to condemn his or her country's actions, even to the point of sympathizing with an enemy when one's country has done something truly awful, this assumption on the part of many that Russia is justified in invading comes too easily and quickly to be truly patriotic. It is almost as though the merest hint that the United States had biolabs in Ukraine is enough to justify Russia. Excuse me, but this is the attitude of an enemy of the United States. Indeed, if the United States has been up to funny business with biological weapon development in Ukraine and if that activity is a major reason for the invasion, then the war is the United States's responsibility. If you really believe Russia has a valid concern over US creation of biological weapons in Ukraine, then the war is the United States's fault, and the United States should take on full responsibility, both for supporting Ukraine in its defense and rebuilding it after the war. 

Another concern I have is the sympathy people have had with Putin’s supposed concern about the spread of NATO. Again, how can we turn against our own nation in this way? The United States is part of NATO and has been a major force in it. There was a time when being pro-American meant supporting and even celebrating the nation’s role as a leader in the free world. There was a time when isolationism had behind it the idea that the United States had caused more trouble than good on the world stage and should crawl into a corner in shame. Surely we Conservatives don’t believe that! We are proud of our nation and of those who have a fighting spirit! It may well be that there is a false equivalence  at the bottom of American sympathy for Putin. In the past, the United States has objected to having Communist nations on its borders. Why then, the thinking goes, ought we to expect Putin to accept having NATO on his borders? This equivalence is unworthy of Conservatives. How can we consider NATO anything like Communism? Communism took away people’s freedom and wormed its way in where it was not always wanted. NATO, by contrast, doesn’t just let anyone join. It does not force nations to join it, nor does it work by destabilizing nations to facilitate its spread. Instead, it must approve those nations who want to join. A nation can be rejected. Equating NATO with Communism is like equating the local country club with a cult. 

Conservative people respect democracy and the rule of law. These principles are vital to our national institutions and to our vision for the nation. In the present conflict, democracy is at stake, at least in Ukraine. Although Russia may be a democracy in name, it is a democracy in name only. It is no more a democracy than the Soviet Union was. It may be more of an oligarchy than the old Soviet system, but it is no democracy. Ukraine, by contrast, is a democracy. From 2014-2021, Russia has had one President. During that time, Ukraine has had three (four if you count Yanukovich). While Ukraine has had peaceful transfers of power, Putin has been monkeying with the Russian constitution to allow himself to stay in power longer. If Putin accomplishes regime change, Ukraine won’t have a democracy. Ukraine will have a puppet government under Moscow. 

Perhaps the most important reason for conservative Christians to have solidarity with Ukraine is that many of our brothers and sisters in Christ benefit from a free Ukraine. While closer ties with Europe could mean the introduction of wrong ideologies from the West, do not be deceived. Putin is no friend to Evangelical Christianity. From what I have heard, religious groups who are not Russian Orthodox do not have great freedom in Russia. In Ukraine, by contrast, Protestant Christians hold worship services, conduct evangelism, put on public events connected with religious holidays, and engage in political demonstrations. In occupied areas, Protestant pastors have been targeted because of Protestantism’s connections to the efforts of Western missionaries. Many of these missionaries have had to cease their work in Ukraine and leave the field because of the war. For us, (I am one of these missionaries) return to an occupied Ukraine is probably not an option. 

The last reason is the most basic and the most vital. It is the reason of common humanity. The war is causing much suffering in Ukraine. Cities have been completely destroyed. Numerous lives have been lost, not only soldiers, but civilians as well. Numerous Ukrainian people now live in exile in neighboring countries, many surviving on aid from the governments of those countries. The sooner the war ends, the sooner these people can go home and support themselves. 

My friends, perhaps I have argued with more spirit than logic. I ask you to indulge me, as this is a topic dear to my heart. I have lived in Ukraine most of my life. My childhood home is there, and I long to return. My nation’s support for Ukraine has been a joy to me. Although I was not initially happy at Biden’s election, I am proud of him now. Let us not make the mistake of taking a stance just for the sake of disagreeing with the candidate from the other party. Lives are at stake. Freedom is at stake. Our support for  Ukraine will cost us a drop in the bucket compared to the abysmal ocean of our national debt. Our withdrawal of support will mean a living hell for millions. Please, don’t make that mistake. 

Christmas Eve in Odessa

 Questions you ask yourself on Christmas Eve, at least where I live: 

1.How much snow needs to be left for it to count as a white Christmas? 

2.  Is it still a white Christmas if there isn't enough snow left to be pretty, but there's enough ice left that you might slip? 

3. If there was still snow at midnight but it was all gone by sunrise, is it still a white Christmas? 

4. What day do you really have to have snow, December 25th, January 1, or January 7? Perhaps all three? 

5. If you're an American child living in Odessa, do you get your presents from Grandfather Frost or Santa Clause? 

6. Do Grandfather Frost and Santa Clause sometimes goof and both give presents to the same child? 

7. Do Grandfather Frost and Santa Clause sometimes really goof and both skip a child? 

8. Do children in Odessa get the same benefit from believing in Grandfather Frost that American children are supposed to get from believing in Santa Clause? 

9.  Should you eat pryaniki (local spice cookies with jam) on the 25th, on New Years', or on Orthodox Christmas? 

10. What Christmas customs should spread to other countries and which ones should not? 

11. Is it too early for me to wish people in America a very Merry Christmas? 

A Response to Thabiti Anyabwile, part II

In my previous post I dealt with what, I suppose, is a peripheral issue. The real issue in Anyabwile's article is probably the sense of hurt at the way white Christians have participated, and may continue to participate, in oppression of other Christians, and that those Christians who could do something about the problem have often stood on the sidelines and let things be. I can understand why this is hurtful. The problem is that this sense of hurt is becoming something more than just a sense of hurt. It is becoming a standard of conduct. Christian inaction in the face of social wrongdoing is considered sin. Should it be? Or, more properly, when should it be? I don't think this sense of hurt can, by itself, be the proper guide for setting moral standards of Christian obligations. We may need to deal separately with the situation in the United States before we can make general rules about Christian obligations. 

Christians cannot be responsible for denouncing every evil in society. As I said in my last previous post, we will always live in a society that is not fully Christian, and people will always be sinning. There must, therefore, be standards by which we determine whether or not a particular form of evil is our business. The bare fact that it is evil isn't enough.  What troubles me is that many people appear to be trying to silence any Christian voice in society, and these people appear to have often been on the Left. Those same people then complain about Christian silence on issues that, frankly, seem a bit nebulous, like economic inequality. Since when does the Church teach that everybody has to be paid the same? By what standard do we decide how much each person should make? While a Christian ethic in this matter gives us good principles, such as the idea that people who work hard and well should be rewarded with good pay, it does not give us the exact number of dollars and cents. Christians can disagree on this issue without disrespecting the Bible. Why such sins as abortion, sex sins, etc? These sins are objective, many of them clearly condemned, and individual.

I have long lived in a society in which bribery is rampant, a way of life. It is not so much an issue of corrupt people bribing officials to do wrong or look the other way. All too often, it is an issue of officials deciding their course based on whether or not they will get a bribe, even refusing to do their jobs unless paid off.  Fortunately, things are getting better. In the older days, people going in for driver's tests would pray they wouldn't have to pay a bribe to pass. That's right; some test administrators wouldn't pass or fail you based on how well you had done. They would pass you without your deserving it if you paid the bribe. They would fail you without your deserving it if you didn't. Now, I don't think a person in that society was complicit for failing to protest about it or denounce it on social media. Everybody knew about this, and lots of people hated it. I think even people who paid the bribes hated it. Refusing to give bribes or take them, particularly when it meant being treated unjustly, was an act of obedience that should not be passed over. I know people who refused to give bribes. Refusing to give a bribe may not have taken as much courage as some forms of obedience, but it did take faith, faith that God saw and honored a small, seemingly impotent act of loyalty to Him in the midst of a system that, at times, seemed corrupt beyond repair. 

I think we need to be careful about setting up hard and fast rules about complicity for all time and all situations. While I think we can say white Christians should have done more to oppose segregation, I don't know that the same thing is happening today. 

On OCD in times of pandemic

 I have OCD and Asperger's Syndrome. Between the two of them, I lack an effective "nonsense filter." Most people have one and don't know they do. The function of this "nonsense filter" is to help people do sensible things. The problem with the universality of nonsense filters is that people's communications are tailored for those with good nonsense filters. They chronically overstate things or say things in ways that could easily be misinterpreted because people's nonsense filters get in the way of their understanding anything. In order to function, I've had to develop my nonsense filter, train it to catch when I'm misinterpreting something, taking it too literally, or taking it to an extreme. I used to get angry at people for overstating things or saying things they didn't mean. I used to hold others responsible whenever my nonsense filter failed and I took something to an extreme. Although I still sometimes get angry, I usually also realize that it's my responsibility to interpret what people say. Unfortunately, I've generally used other people's levels of caution to train my nonsense filter. "Maybe some expert said we need to do such and such, but nobody actually does that, so I won't," or "This or that conclusion sounds crazy, like something Mr. Monk (from the TV show) would do, so I think it's probably extreme." I have to have this nonsense filter. OCD is like a black hole. If you give in to it, it sucks you in further and further. It is like sin. It consumes your life if you obey it. 

A year and a few months ago, people collectively lost their nonsense filters. At least, it seemed that way to me. 

It might seem strange to say that, but that's what happened.  So many of the things people were doing to prevent Covid, particularly at the beginning, were things that would never have made it through my nonsense filter. People were avoiding going outside, sterilizing everything, thinking they could get the virus from cardboard, and calling people irresponsible and selfish for going to the beach. (seriously). How could I know what was true? People were behaving more extreme than I'd ever done, but these were normal people, not people like me. What's worse, I felt expected to go in a direction, to take my thinking in a direction, that I generally avoid like the mouth of Hell. 

Now, somebody will say, "But this was a new situation. We didn't know. This was more dangerous..." Was it really that new? I live in a city where tuberculosis is a thing, there's been trouble with typhus (or typhoid, I don't remember which) at the local market, reports of disease-laden water (even cholera) at the local beaches are a frequent occurrence, and we used to find used syringes in our stairwell. How did I live my life, you may ask? I generally washed my hands after coming home, but not as religiously as I do now. I swam at the beach even when the water wasn't clean (just like most of the people there), and I wore open-toed shoes (just like many other women in the city). Most people don't run the numbers to determine the exact chances of something happening before they decide whether or not it's safe to do something. More often, I think, they go by more atavistic, more primal drives. People fear a danger not because it is dangerous but because it is new. But the old danger, even if it is greater, is met with a shrug and denial. 

I remember being told that I must be washing my hands too much because they were getting dry. I was only washing them as much as good sense said to, and I probably wasn't washing them for twenty seconds. Now, the conventional wisdom is that it's fine if your hands get dry and chapped, even though Covid isn't thought to be transmitted by surfaces. Go figure. 

The needs of people like me have fallen by the wayside. With the national panic underway, the last thing anybody has wanted to do is tell people to use common sense, not to be cautious, and not to be extreme. Yet, these are they very things we OCD people need to hear. It's not enough to tell us to do breathing exercises. That doesn't take away the crazy thoughts, the direction of thought. You can do crazy things and still be really calm about it. You can bleach your vegetables with a low heart rate. You can stay away from the rest of your family because you have some congestion that you'd never worry about except for Covid, that you know is in your head. You can do that with a low heart rate, too. You can wash your hands after every time you touch your phone, even though you're starting to get sores on your hands. You can have such low cortisol when doing it, too! But what you want to do is stop bleaching your vegetables. What you want to do is say that congestion is nothing and live like it. What you want to do is stop washing your hands. But nobody will help you on that journey. You have to defy every piece of advice you can find on the internet and take that step away from the abyss, not knowing if you're protecting yourself too much from the abyss and too little from other dangers. OCD doesn't let you care. 

At this point, I'm tempted to ask, who's neurotic? This pandemic has made me pessimistic about human common sense and about my efforts to have a good nonsense filter. For one thing, being normal doesn't guarantee a good nonsense filter. Anybody can panic. I actually felt like I had a less extreme nonsense filter than some people. The second thing I've had to face (again, I faced it in college) is the way my nonsense filter has been about more than protecting myself from getting sucked into my own extremism.  It's about trying to live a normal life and live up to expectations that I be a normal person. Maybe I've put living a normal life before my own safety. I have to admit there's resentment there. It seems unfair that there are people being more extreme than I ever was and "getting away with it". I'm not sure what the future is for me and my nonsense filter. I'm pretty sure now that I can't trust other people to teach me what my nonsense filter should filter out. 

For all of you out there hyperventilating and saying "She's going to get Covid! She's going to kill us all!" I reply, "I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to act stupid. I'm just done being messed with." 

Power or Justice

 In the wake of the election of Donald Trump, many disgruntled Christians have accused Trump voters of seeking power at a cost and have said that Christians should have "laid down their arms." I think those who characterize Trump voters as power seekers are misframing the issue, at least, misframing the way many Trump voters, particularly reluctant Trump voters, saw their decision. 

First, people characterize a vote for Trump as a desire for power. That wasn't my perception. Since when is wanting to be allowed to follow your conscience "seeking power"? Since when is voting for your alma mater not to be defunded for requiring Biblical sexual conduct "seeking power"? 

Now, I agree that there are times to allow yourself to be persecuted and mistreated for the sake of the Gospel, but that is a different business to merely giving up power. When it is a necessity, it is a solemn one. If we are to undertake such a thing, we must understand what we are doing in the right terms. In a few words, we are permitting people to sin against us. More than that, we are promoting government injustice. Persecution of Christians is injustice. In temporal terms, it generally violates the Constitution, an agreement the government has sworn to uphold. Whatever the faults in the Constitution, it is still a promise our government has made. The Bible commands people to be true to their words. In eternal terms, it is unjust because it inverts the purpose of government. According to Scripture, the government ought to punish wrongdoing and praise righteousness. Persecution of Christians punishes righteousness and rewards wrongdoing. When governments persecute Christians, they have gone mad and are substituting our good for theirs. That is, they are doing us eternal good while harming themselves. Is it not selfish, then, for us to court persecution without giving our potential persecutors every  possible warning of what the result of their actions is likely to be? Do we do an abuser good by allowing him to pummel us if, by legal and legitimate (if unpleasant) means we can restrain the abuser and prevent him from committing further sin? So what if the abuser complains that we should have born our persecution patiently? We know where such statements come from and what their real motive is. 

Now, all this presupposes that the means at hand are legal and legitimate. If a vote for Trump was not a legitimate means, by all means tell me why, but don't imagine that "giving up power" is a light matter merely to be undertaken because the alternative "looks bad" in the world's eyes.  

A word of conciliation: It is true that many Christians who supported Donald Trump have an idolatrous vision of him. Some see him as a kind of messiah. Such thinking is disturbing and wrong. Brothers and sisters in conservative denominations: This should not be! Pastors, preach against it! Let us have no illusions about this man. 

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.