Over the last week or so, my alma mater Gordon College has been making headlines because of a letter that was sent to the White House requesting an exemption from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that President Obama was expected to sign and enact via Executive Order. The letter was co-authored and signed by a number of evangelical leaders, including the President of Gordon College, D. Michael Lindsay. I may, if time allows, put together another post with all the links that you need to read up on the issue yourself, including the original letter, the resulting petition from moveon.org, as well as responses from the President and the Chair of the Trustees of Gordon. In the meantime, I’ve decided to put some thoughts to paper (or screen) that I hope will help to provide some clarity if you, like me, are wrestling with the myriad of questions that have arisen as a result of the letter.
It has become obvious to me as I’ve watched the back-and-forth in social media, the outrage by some in the Christian community (and general confusion by others), and the carefully crafted responses from Dr. Lindsay and the College is that most Christians have a lack of clarity when it comes to both the issue of religious freedom, as well as the College’s position on homosexuality.
To be clear, Dr. Lindsay and the College have carefully articulated their position as it relates to religious freedom in the United States apart from homosexuality as a particularly defining issue. This is wise. The issue of sexual preference/gender identity is a defining issue of our day and must be dealt with in the context of honest dialogue and loving relationship. The freedom to have a particular defining stance as it relates to that issue, however, is a different thing altogether, and that is what the original letter to the White House was addressing. Dr. Lindsay and others are defending the right of a religious institution to have particular religious thoughts and convictions, regardless of what those thoughts and convictions may be, or whether or not they are in agreement with the social and cultural views of the day.
(The ENDA, for what it’s worth, would only have applied to institutions that received federal funding or federal contracts. The argument in the letter sent to the White House was that the ENDA would force religious institutions to choose between their religious convictions on the one hand, or the government funding on the other. If they stuck with their convictions–something any serious religious institution would do, of course–it would mean that whatever services they provided to the community would undoubtedly suffer because of the loss of funding. There is a question here about the extent to which the government should be involved in religious organizations, and vice versa, but that is a discussion for another day.)
Inasmuch as Dr. Lindsay and the College have avoided the discussion of the college’s position on sexual preference/gender identity, however, the reality is that the petition and response to the letter were primarily motivated because of what people interpreted–rightly or wrongly–as a request to willfully discriminate against the LGBT community. I’d argue that it was a misinterpretation of the letter, but one that was at least understandable, if we don’t know what the Bible teaches about identity and conduct. That’s acceptable for a non-Christian–why should they care what the Bible says? It’s a sad thing, however, when so many Christians seem confused. But then that is the issue: without a proper understanding of identity and conduct, Christians will be woefully unprepared to deal with culture issues such as the one at hand.
After all, this is the foundational claim being made by those that are fighting for what they claim are “civil rights” for those in the LGBT community. It is a civil rights issue precisely because of the fact that it is an identity issue. Just like society eventually realized that we shouldn’t discriminate against someone because of their skin color (an identity issue), we shouldn’t discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference (also an identity issue).
In other words, we shouldn't discriminate against someone based on something that is part of their biological nature. That is to say that a person who has dark skin is no less of a person than someone who has light skin, and therefore, they shouldn't be treated any differently by society. The same goes for someone who was "born" with a particular sexual preference, or even for people whose sexual preference or preferential gender identity doesn't necessarily match up with their biological gender identity, as is the case with transgender people. Their sexual preference, or preferred gender identity, as the case may be, does not make them any less of a person, and therefore, they shouldn't be treated as any less of a person.
There is an assumption being made here, of course, which is that sexual preference or gender identity is something that is inherent to our genetic makeup; it's something we're born with. A gay person is born gay the same way that your skin color is determined by your DNA. And while Christians have in some instances tried to make the case that it is not genetic, I don’t think that argument is helpful nor even particularly intelligent. Firstly, the question of whether or not there is a “gay gene” in a person’s DNA is a scientific question requiring scientific methodology, observation, and inquiry. Secondly, in the end, it doesn’t matter for the Christian perspective.
In any event, culture at large believes that identity will necessarily lead to conduct. Or, belief will lead to behavior. And while we as a society don’t believe in discriminating against people based on their identity, we all agree that we should be able to discriminate against people based on their conduct. That is to say that we typically wouldn’t deny service to someone in our restaurant for looking a certain way, but we would discriminate against someone if they entered into our establishment and began screaming, shouting, and generally acting unruly and obnoxious. In most cases, we would not just refuse service, but we would forcibly remove them, regardless of what they looked like. We discriminate based on behavior all the time, either because we think the behavior is dangerous or because we just don't like it.
(I was almost discriminated against on a golf course because I didn't realize that I couldn't drive the golf cart across the par-3 fairway. Unfortunately, as I sped across the grass, blissfully ignorant, the ranger spotted me and gave me a tongue lashing. He could have kicked me off the course because of my behavior.)
What we recognize as a culture is that conduct is directly related to our identity, or our behavior demonstrates what it is we really believe. And, in many cases, we reserve the right to discriminate against you if your behavior (or conduct) indicates that you weren’t who you said you were (identity), or don’t believe what you said you believe. Just ask the NBA.
The NBA recently made clear to Donald Sterling that people like him weren't allowed in their club; he wasn't allowed to be a part of their establishment. You'd be hard pressed to find a person who thinks that the NBA's discrimination towards Sterling was not warranted; what he said was extremely offensive and shockingly obtuse. What we'll discover in short order, however, is whether or not it was legal. Most people think it was. The reason? Donald Sterlings behavior was contrary to the code of conduct set forth by the NBA and the NBA owners, a constitution that he himself agreed to. He claimed, in principle, to believe what the rest of the NBA and the owners believed. Unfortunately, his actions proved otherwise. And based on those actions, the NBA felt justified in removing him from involvement in their organization.
Identity necessarily leads to conduct. That’s the point. Our conduct reveals who we really are. How can we force someone to behave contrary to who they are? To do so would not only be cruel, it would effectively be impossible. And as Christians, we should whole-heartedly agree. Our conduct will necessarily follow our identity; that is exactly what the Bible teaches.
The central theme of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that we don’t need a change in conduct, we need a change in identity. Only once our identity is changed will our conduct be changed. Our behavior will follow our beliefs, and not the other way around. So fellow Christian, do not miss what the Bible teaches about you: your identity is found in Christ. This is the dramatic overhaul that has happened in you, through the Holy Spirit, because of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross.
This is the reason it really doesn’t matter whether our sexual preferences are genetic or whether or not they are learned. Christianity teaches that all of our desires–genetic or learned–are going to be warped. We have a tendency (and more than just a small tendency) to want to do things our own way, to make ourselves the center of the world, to have all choices and decisions revolve around us, and largely, to ignore anything or anyone that says differently, including, even, a creator God. At least we're all on the same page, rebellious people that we are. It’s our natural-born identity.
What does matter, however, is that we have been renewed by the Holy Spirit so that our identity is no longer found in our nature, it is found in our spirit. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation!” (2 Cor. 5:17) This doesn’t mean that our natural-born self suddenly disappears. Far from it! It does mean, however, that because our very identity has changed, our conduct will no longer be forcibly driven by our nature. Since our identity has been changed, by grace, it will become increasingly obvious in our conduct and how we behave.
The standards of conduct set forth by an institution like Gordon College seek to articulate what that obedient life looks like, an obedient life that is only made possible because of our new identity in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. For example, the Bible articulates God’s ideal for sex and marriage as being between one man and one woman in an unbreakable covenant relationship. Thus, anything outside of that would be considered outside of God’s ideals, and thus, "disobedient", including viewing pornography (also prohibited in the standards of conduct, if I remember correctly) and extra-marital sex. The Christian person who finds their identity in Christ may be tempted towards those things because of our nature, but won’t continue to find them compulsory. Their identity in Christ means that they can choose God’s ideals, and in fact, will desire God’s ideals, based on that identity, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Lindsay, and the Chair of the Trustees, carefully articulated in their letters what all Christians should believe: we do not discriminate based on people’s fundamental nature, because Jesus does not discriminate based on our fundamental nature. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...” (Romans 3:23) Yet they also made clear that there is a discriminatory marker, and that is our conduct. If a staff member or a student consistently conducts himself in a manner that is contrary to the schools standards, based on the college’s view of what the Bible teaches as an obedient lifestyle, they may face discipline or removal. It is a code of conduct which every faculty member and student agrees to at the time of hiring or admission.
What they didn’t articulate was that the reason for this is because of the deeper issue related to identity. The very reason that Gordon can discriminate based on conduct is because conduct reveals who a person really is. Is your identity really found in Christ? It will show through in your conduct and your desires and your ability to be obedient. Imperfect obedience, of course. The Christian life is a life of repentance, not perfection. But our new identity will compel us closer to obedience, and not further away from it. So, as one reformer said, “the greatest perfection of the Christian is the desire to make progress...”
The bottom line is that without Jesus, and the new identity that we receive through faith, we are completely powerless to choose against our biological impulses and our biological nature. But we have a new identity, and we are not powerless, and as a result, we can live a life of obedience to God and his word even when it goes against everything that culture tells us or that culture believes. It’s not cruel to ask the Christian person to choose against their old nature; in fact, it’s cruel to ask them to choose against their new nature! That is who they really are now, because of Jesus Christ.
I don’t expect the world, at large, to understand that. But I hope and pray that we Christians do.