Are Christians Too Bigoted to Work With?

You may have seen the headline by now: Christian College Discriminates Against Homosexuals.  And the follow-up: City Cuts Off Christian College.  But isn’t it weirdly ironic that non-religious governments now seem to be repeating the separatist struggles of fundamentalists?  Doesn’t it seem odd that the drive for tolerance pushes pluralists to act like the more extreme religious separatists?

In this case, it was the public decision of Gordon College President D. Michael Lindsay to sign a letter to President Obama that sparked the furor.  [Full disclosure: Lindsay and I worked together as 2009 Spencer/National Academy of Education postdoctoral fellows, and I admire Lindsay personally and consider him a friend and colleague.]  Along with a host of other prominent evangelical leaders and intellectuals, Lindsay asked President Obama for a religious exemption to a planned executive order banning workplace discrimination against homosexuals.

Lindsay’s participation caused a furious reaction.  Gordon alumni and students petitioned Lindsay to retract.  Gordon College’s accrediting agency promised to investigate.  And most notably, the nearby city of Salem, Massachusetts canceled its partnering contract with Gordon to operate an historic city building.

Let me be clear about a couple of points.  First, I personally agree that institutions should not discriminate against homosexuals.  Public governments, especially, have a duty to include all members of society, not only passively, but actively.  IHMO.  Also, I do not wish to argue whether Lindsay’s position is or is not “anti-gay,” since he has publicly insisted that Gordon College does not discriminate against homosexuals.  And though I find it curious, I don’t want to ask why President Lindsay has become the center of this controversy, even though the letter was signed by many other evangelical leaders as well.  Even on my humble little blog, for example, I’ve experienced a surge of search terms such as “D. Michael Lindsay bigot” and “Gordon College Anti Gay.”  Why has Lindsay become the focus in this case?  Why not all the other signatories?

Though interesting, we have to leave such questions aside for now.  From an historical point of view, there is a more interesting aspect to this case.  It seems that those who support tolerance and diversity have, in some ways, adopted the position of the traditionally conservative fundamentalists.

Here’s what I mean: In the twentieth century, conservative Christian colleges carried on a furious and often angry internecine debate about the propriety of partnering with non-Christian institutions.  Schools such as Gordon and Wheaton College earned the vicious denunciation of more conservative schools such as Bob Jones University.  Among the many accusations, more conservative, “fundamentalist” schools often insisted that the more open, “evangelical” schools had tainted themselves by their open association with non-Christian ideas.  Separatist fundamentalists often cited the Bible passage 2 Corinthians, chapter 6, verse 14:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

In order to be truly Christian, separatists argued, believers could not allow themselves to be joined with those who did not share their belief.  So, for instance, when fundamentalist megastar Jerry Falwell worked with conservative Catholics and Jews in the Moral Majority, fundamentalist leaders at Bob Jones University denounced Falwell as the “most dangerous man in America.”

This rigid separatism, indeed, has been one of the hallmarks of American fundamentalism.  Some fundamentalists have insisted that they must practice even a “secondary separation,” not sharing Christian fellowship with other Christians if those other Christians share fellowship with questionable folks.

Now, it seems the city of Salem feels it must practice a strangely similar form of separatism.  As Salem Mayor Kimberly Driscoll informed Gordon College in a recent letter, the city must separate itself from the college.  Why?  Because, Driscoll wrote, Lindsay’s position implied open discrimination against the LGBT community.  The college had every right to do so, Driscoll believed, but the city could no longer be affiliated with such things.  The city’s non-discrimination law, Driscoll informed Lindsay, “prohibits our municipality from contracting with entities that maintain discriminatory practices.”

This is not the only time when the beliefs of liberals and fundamentalists have neatly swapped sides.  In the creation-evolution debates, for example, creationists took over evolutionists’ positions.  As historian Ronald Numbers has pointed out, by the 1990s creationists began appropriating the language of 1920s liberals.  In the 1920s, evolution supporters insisted that teaching only one theory was bigotry.  By the 1990s, creationists started saying the same thing.

In this case, we see a weird and clearly unintentional echo.  Mayor Driscoll feels compelled to separate her government from any entity that practices discrimination against homosexuals.  It is not enough, morally, for her government itself to avoid such discrimination.  The principle of separation seems to have migrated from fundamentalists to their supposedly tolerant opponents.

 

Advertisements
Leave a comment

10 Comments

  1. I think there is a huge difference between separating yourself from people because of what they are (“Catholics are bad and we cannot be affiliated with them”) vs. a particular action that they do (“this college is actively involved in discrimination so we cannot be affiliated with them”). That said, I am not comfortable with city governments making decisions not to partner with others based on the personal belief of the mayor… this feels to me like a government enforcing morality. However, if businesses or individuals wish to boycott or cut affiliations with a college that promotes bigotry, I think that is admirable. And promoting bigotry is exactly what this man is doing.

    And, with all due respect, his excuse that the college does not discriminate against gays is laughable, as his involvement in this signing is a very clear message to us that we are not welcome there.

    Reply
  2. Also, “tolerance” does not mean “accepting all actions as acceptable and being silent about them.” Tolerance means “treating people with respect and dignity and equality regardless of race, religion, belief, sexuality, gender, etc.” Being tolerant in no way obligates me or anyone else to be silent about discrimination and hateful actions. Rather, tolerance motivates me to do something about it.

    So please, I don’t understand why you would play the “acting against discrimination is intolerance!” card because this has nothing to do with being intolerant of Christians, as your article title suggests. It has everything to do with being intolerant of bigotry and discrimination, which is what this college now actively promotes.

    Reply
  3. Agellius

     /  July 15, 2014

    “And, with all due respect, his excuse that the college does not discriminate against gays is laughable…”

    “Tolerance means ‘treating people with respect and dignity and equality regardless of race, religion, belief, sexuality, gender, etc.'”

    So if Gordon College DOES, in actual fact, treat people with “respect and dignity and equality regardless of race, religion, belief, sexuality, gender, etc.”, that’s not good enough?

    Reply
    • I need to start by acknowledging my vast ignorance on this subject. But my personal acquaintance with D. Michael Lindsay, my work at Catholic schools, and my reading of (to me) surprising stories such as that of Brandon Ambrosino leads me to believe that my knee-jerk assumptions are not entirely accurate. Personally, I assumed that one became more viciously anti-gay as one became more conservative in one’s religion. And I know that the life experiences of many people confirm that stereotype. But I’ve also seen that assumption upended time and again. I don’t think it’s simply true that conservative Christians UNIFORMLY fail to treat people with “respect and equality regardless of race, religion, belief, sexuality, gender, etc.”

      Reply
      • Agellius

         /  July 15, 2014

        Adam:

        I admit that those Christians who are “viciously anti-gay” do tend to be conservative ones. But as you know, it’s fallacious to conclude that since all A are B, therefore all B are A.

        In my personal experience, the conservative Christians with whom I associate and who I’m related to tend to consider kindness and respect towards any and everyone to be indispensable to being a good Christian. It’s baffling to us that some Christians think that the way to convert people is to insult them and tell them that God hates them. The same fundamentalists who act that way towards homosexuals, also tend to act that way towards Catholics, calling the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon and Catholics idolaters and statue-worshippers.

        I suspect their thinking is that the way to get people to change their sinful ways and accept the Gospel is to shock and scare them into it. If you pussyfoot around, they may remain complacent in their sins and therefore be lost. Therefore you’ve got to call a spade a spade and make no bones about it.

        I tend to think such people are a minority among even conservative Christians, though they get a disproportionate share of attention. But I don’t have facts and figures to back that up.

  4. I see this as an unsurprising reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision.

    Many Americans, including many Christians, strongly believe in the idea of a separation of Church and state. They are appalled at the court decision. They have concluded that the court can no longer be trusted to uphold the non-establishment clause. So they are taking it into their own hands.

    As they see the Hobby Lobby case, if they give a proverbial inch, then the supremes will say that religion can take a mile. Therefore, they must never give an inch.

    Reply
  1. Obama Persecutes Christian Schools | I Love You but You're Going to Hell
  2. Evangelicals and Homosexuality on the College Campus | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s