Having addressed my chief concern–that Christians must be able to distinguish between identity & conduct, and recognize what it is that has changed in us because of Jesus–I wanted to move on to a second point regarding the exemption letter recently sent to the White House. How much can we expect Christian organizations to be able to partner with the Government, and vice versa?
Most of the issues that Biblical Christians are going to encounter in 21st century America will require a combination of conviction and nuance to navigate. While that may be new to American Christians who have, for the most part, experienced their faith in the midst of a culture whose value system closely resembled their own, it isn't "new" to historical Christianity. Jesus himself navigated the tricky waters of Biblical conviction and political involvement when he was asked about paying taxes. (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17) The New Testament letters instruct Christians how they should respond to the political and social forces of the day in a way that was Christ honoring, but would also be submissive to the government (See 1 Peter 2:13-17 for an example). It's important for the 21st century American Christian to realize that there is a way to be distinctively Christian, but still participate in the social order of the day.
This combination of conviction and nuance, the ability to stand firmly on what we believe the Bible teaches, while also being able to interact in a positive way with the culture, requires that Christians have a clear understanding of what the Bible actually teaches, as well as a firm grasp on where the points of resistance will be from culture. Most people have a tendency to opt for one or the other: either we stand on our convictions, culture be damned; or we stand with culture, convictions be damned. This is at least part of the reason that amongst Christians our first reaction to a letter like the one Lindsay signed is a visceral one; it makes us feel a certain way and we respond accordingly. If we are the convicted type, we come out on the supportive end and can't understand anyone who is against it. If we are more for nuance, we find the letter to be off-putting and defaming the name of Christ, or at least what it means to be loving. For the Christian, however, Conviction and Culture aren't opposites or even on a spectrum; they both operate together, all the time. We need to understand what the Bible says, and then apply it in the context in which we find ourselves; we need to apply it to our culture.
The letter that Lindsay signed seeks to deal with this difficult ground of conviction and culture. I think that Lindsay ought to be commended for having the courage to take a stand for something as historically elusive as real, religious freedom–something we’ve taken for granted, at least in my lifetime, in America. What was troublesome to me was that my perception of people’s response, particularly those opposed to the exemption letter, seemed to zero in on the idea that Gordon, in some way, was being discriminatory. That led me to my first response which dealt with the discrimination (or discernment) that a Christian organization will necessarily have if they are to be distinctively Christian.
The main point of that post, more succinctly, was that while we as Christians should not discriminate against a person who is gay, a Christian organization should be allowed to discriminate against a person who is not a Christian. That distinction is incredibly important for the Christian to recognize. You can be a gay Christian. You cannot be an unrepentant Christian. An unrepentant Christian is an oxymoron; if you disagree with what God calls sin, it is an indicator that you really don't believe what you say you believe. (Matthew 18:15-17). The apostle John says that if you say you are a Christian, but do not follow God's commands, you are a liar. (1 John 1:6; 1 John 2:4-6) A Christian organization would be working against itself to hire people who don't agree with their fundamental outlook on the world; they shouldn't be forced to hire people who are not Christians–a fact that is sometimes revealed by a persons conduct. If a Christian organization is forced to hire someone who openly and continually disregards what they believe God's word teaches, it would be a clear violation of their religious liberty.
I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, that is not the whole story. The letter that Lindsay has added his name to is responding to an executive order that would currently only apply to federal contractors. That is, President Obama is issuing an order for any company that receives federal dollars or has a federal contract including religious organizations that receive federal funding for some work they are doing in the community. The concern expressed in the exemption letter is that this will ultimately leave religious organizations who currently receive federal funding in a difficult position: either they stand on their convictions, and lose their funding, or they drop their convictions, and keep their funding. It's also important to note that this doesn't effect only Christian organizations; other non-Christian religious organizations who are discriminatory in their hiring practice for religious reasons, as well as any religious-based federal contractor who maintains a standards of conduct that is discriminatory, would be included as well.
The exemption letter attempts to address what it’s authors see as the implications of the ENDA: it is highly likely that, at least in the short term, the executive order would harm far more people than it would help. Most legitimate Christian organizations who are currently serving the poor or marginalized of their communities in general will opt for standing on their convictions, and either be forced to seek other funding sources, to scale back, or to shut down altogether. The argument thus rests on the belief that there is a "greater good". In this case, the "greater good" is the work being done by the many religious organizations that receive federal aid, even if their hiring policies are discriminatory towards the LGBT community.
One of the problems that I think we are seeing is that what someone intends to say is not always what is heard. It seems to me that what was heard was that Dr. Lindsay wanted to add Gordon College to a list of organizations that are legally allowed to discriminate against gay people. Having attended Gordon College, and having utmost confidence in the administration, staff, and faculty, I strongly believe that this was not at all the intention and that Gordon maintains the same standards of conduct that it has always had, as expressed repeatedly in the responses from Dr. Lindsay and the Chair of the Trustees. Again, to be clear: Gordon College does and is legally allowed to discriminate against people who are not Christians, which is sometimes demonstrated through their unwillingness to live according to a biblical standard. But, this has nothing to do with a person’s fundamental nature, people group, sexual preference, or any other thing that may arise from our inherent genetic makeup.
In other words, the problem, as I see it, is that the letter failed to adequately address the intentions of the authors and left open to interpretation what they were saying in the background, which has justifiably caused more controversy than was intended. Or, to use the language I used earlier, perhaps the letter required more nuance, and possibly even more focus on the actual issue at hand.
To begin with, in my view, the ENDA does not restrict religious freedoms for any religious organization. That is to say that any organization based in the United States may continue to operate according to their standards of ethics and conduct, based on their religious conviction, without interference from the Government. This is the essence of religious freedom. The government will not, and cannot, tell you what to believe nor can it restrict your freedom to operate according to those convictions, except where it might cause harm to others.
What the ENDA addresses is cases where you have allowed Government “interference” into your organization because of the agreements that you have entered into with them, whether as a contractor, or as a recipient of funding. This is a different case altogether, and one that I think the Christian must wrestle with. As I mentioned earlier, we have taken for granted that for the most part, our government has supported Judeo-Christian ethics and the church/culture value systems have aligned closely enough where partnership could be easily accomplished. But as the value system of culture changes, it will be the Christian who has to increasingly make the choice to either stand on their convictions, or align themselves with organizations who do not share their view of the world. Isn’t it often true that the borrower becomes the slave to the lender? Such is the case, I think, when we accept funding from any institution that does not share our value system, especially the government.
This is why I believe so many in the media picked up this letter for critique. The exemption letter seems to come at the ENDA from the angle of religious freedom, but as I’ve identified, religious freedom is not necessarily what is at stake. What is at stake is the receipt of federal funding or contracts. By addressing it in terms of religious freedom, however, the exemption letter places the emphasis on religious institutions necessary desire to be discerning in their hiring policy, rather than the implications of what would happen if the government decided to no longer fund explicitly religious institutions, even if the work they were doing was good for the national interest. And yet, it is this second piece that I believe is the real issue, and, was always the intention of the authors of the exemption letter.
As I looked at the list of organizations who signed the letter, for example, there were several that stuck out to me. One was Bethany Christian Services. I have three adopted children, and know several employees of Bethany, so I highly value the work that they do both nationally and internationally through their adoption and foster services. In our area, Bethany works alongside of DYFS to ensure that children are taken care of, and placed into foster or adoptive care when necessary. Bethany is also an explicitly Christian organization with an explicitly Christian standard of conduct. Were the ENDA to go through, whatever agreements they have with the State of New Jersey (as well as agreements in other states) would be at risk, since they would continue to maintain their standard of conduct and thus, be unable to receive a federal contract. This would have a ripple effect on the state level. Eventually, non-religious organizations may step into the gap, but in the short term, there would be immediate effects of the ENDA that would result in a loss of social services to a large number of people.
Or consider Catholic Charities, which I assume runs some inner city ministries such as food pantries, men’s and women’s shelters, homeless ministry, and the like. It is in the best interest of the government to give a grant to a Catholic Charity, rather than to try to fund a program itself. The fact is that someone working at a non-profit organization makes significantly less than any social worker in a government agency. Thus, it’s cheaper for the government to fund Catholic Charities than it is to try to take care of the work itself.
Or, in Gordon College’s case, what about federal student loans? Would Gordon continue to qualify as a destination for those loans? Or what of any work that Gordon might be doing in the scientific or computer field, where they might receive government funding to do their research?
The point is that if the ENDA goes through, Dr. Lindsay and these other religious leaders see that there will be implications, and they might be more far reaching than anyone is prepared for. They are sincerely asking culture, and the White House, a question: can we agree to disagree on this one issue, so that the work that we are doing together can continue? Perhaps the letter would have had more impact if there were some hard facts within the letter addressing these implications.
To ask the question another way, what will go away if the ENDA goes through? It won’t be religious freedom, and it won’t be religious “discrimination”. But it will be a lot of good, community serving organizations and the work that they are doing. I think that’s where the letter could use more focus.
So let me add one more thought, for any Christian organization who is wrestling with whether or not they will lose their funding: who is it that has called you to your work?
The nuance (if we can continue to use that word) of Jesus' response to the Pharisees who approached him about taxes was that he put the government in their proper place without having to sacrifice his conviction. The instructions of the New Testament authors did the same. The Christian, they would argue, is a citizen of another kingdom with another King. And that King has called them to the work of restoration of the whole world, including caring for the poor and the marginalized. If our earthly government is willing to support that effort without us having to sacrifice our convictions, we should rejoice! But if they order us to sacrifice our convictions, or else they won't give us the funding we used to have, we can still rejoice. Why?
Because our funding never really came from them anyway. The government didn't call us to the work of restoration and the government isn't on the hook to fund it. God calls, God provides. (Take note that God tells his people through the prophet Haggai that he's going to "shake down" the nations for all of their gold and silver...the King's economy doesn't have a cash flow problem.)
It might be a good idea to warn the White House what is at stake if the ENDA goes through. But let’s keep things in perspective. We’re just sojourners here anyway, living by a different set of rules, and we’re going to keep on doing good whether the government is willing to help us fund it or not.