Tag: LGBTQ

The Equality Act, Christian Colleges, and LGBTQ+ Inclusion

Back in March, the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender Americans. Passing on a nearly party line vote (3 Republicans joined the Democrats), it moves to the Senate for consideration. As the linked text shows, the legislation bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) in hiring, housing, and public accommodations like restaurants.

Christian college leaders and conservative legal groups have raised ongoing concerns about the legislation. Some would prefer the Freedom For All legislation based on what is known as the Utah Compromise. FFA would extend civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ individuals on the above issues but carve out a religious exemption that leaves churches and religious organizations like Christian Colleges exempt from the impact of the nondiscrimination law. It’s kind of a stretch to call this a compromise, since the religious groups would not be giving anything up. Of course, some religious groups oppose even the FFA as they see any recognition of LGBTQ+ populations as a slippery slope that must be avoided at all costs.

The primary concern from conservative Christian leaders is that the bill that passed the House denies them protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In other words, there would no longer be a presumption of a set-aside for religious groups. Numerous Christian college presidents have claimed that should the Equality Act become law, it would mean that the schools could no longer pursue their mission, would be required to allow transgender students to live in dorms consistent with their gender identity, and deny students access to Pell Grants and Subsidized Student Loans (based on an interpretation of the 70s-era Bob Jones University decision).

To be fair, most of these leaders also go out of their way to affirm that all people reflect the image of God. In doing so, however, they tend to rely on scriptural interpretation that supports their prior claims. For example, reference to Genesis 1: 27 says “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (NIV).” But where the focus could be on the created image in all, these leaders place priority on the last clause, effectively negating the broader intent. This clause is used to eliminate the legitimacy of the transgender population. Similar defenses are raised with regard to Matthew 19: 6, when Jesus quotes the Genesis passage and explains that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh (NIV).” The literal focus on men and women actually takes away from the focus on long-term commitment, especially since the context of the chapter is about divorce.

Yet under the guise of the nebulous “deeply held religious beliefs” religious freedom protections are claimed. Never mind that these very verses would be deeply meaningful to a same-sex couple who has decided to make a lifelong commitment. Because “we believe the Bible” can be used to trump other arguments.

Christian colleges would do well to pay more attention to the theological frameworks that are deeply held by queer Christians. It would go a long way toward actual engagement, if these leaders were serious about celebrating the Imago Dei and resulting dignity of all.

There is another problem with the claims made by Christian College leaders. They are based on the assumption that the Equality Act that passed the House will pass the Senate in its current form. A refresher from Schoolhouse Rock seems to be in order. The Senate is divided 50-50 and the Equality Act will not be considered without the support of 60 senators to overcome cloture. That is practically impossible to accomplish and the RFRA protections would almost certainly be added back. But opposing the Equality Act is useful in demonstrating one’s conservative credentials, keeping donors and trustees happy, and positioning the college as fighting the good fight in the culture wars.

Let’s play out their concerns about the Equality Act a little further. What would happen if RFRA protections were not present? It would open the door for discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations. It would be up to the courts to determine the ability of Christian Colleges to maintain what they believe are mission-central policies. As Mark Silk has observed, the current Supreme Court is the most friendly to religious freedom arguments in recent history and is especially favorable to conservative Christianity. During the Covid pandemic, SCOTUS has decided against the state in favor of religious groups in nearly every case, creating new requirements that go far beyond what the 1990 Smith decision held regarding “generally applicable laws.” Religion seems poised to win most cases of external restrictions placed upon religious organizations.

It’s worth considering that the real impetus for change regarding LGBTQ+ inclusion at Christian Colleges and religious organizations comes not from the force of government but from within their own constituencies.

Recent developments have shown how ignoring the internal question may no longer be possible. Four weeks ago a group of 35 current and former Christian College students sued the Department of Education over the practice of granting religious exemptions to existing nondiscrimination laws. Their lawsuit documents the variety of ways that the policies of the schools led directly to discriminatory harm for these students, including bullying and required counseling. I haven’t heard any updates since the original stories but I expect the number of individuals joining the class action suit to grow in coming months.

This lawsuit alleging discrimination based on SOGI status is particularly fraught in light of the SCOTUS’ 6-3 Bostock decision. In an opinion authored by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, it ruled that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. While biblical interpretation may pass muster under broad religious liberty claims, discrimination potentially will be seen differently by the court.

I recently read Oklahoma State sociologist Jonathan Coley’s Gay on God’s Campus — a sociological examination of how students at four religious schools (Goshen, Belmont, Catholic U, and Loyola-Chicago) advocated for LGBTQ+ engagement. While the patterns differed somewhat across the schools and the interviews, it was clear that the gay students at those schools had picked them because of their religious commitments. In fact, it seemed to me that the very nature of the Christian community fostered by those schools allowed students a safe transition to come out to their friends and family.

It is also true that LGBTQ+ inclusion has become important to many others in the student population. I’ve often reminded people that Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, when today’s college seniors were five years old. Straight allies have had gay friends at school for most of their lives.

Change is bubbling up on Christian College campuses, whether the leaders want it to come or not. After an adjunct faculty member was denied a full-time position at Seattle Pacific for being in a same-sex relationship, students and faculty pushed for a revision in the school’s human sexuality statement. The trustees refused to consider revising the statement and the student paper advocated for dramatic steps in reaction including discouraging donors and suggesting students sit out the fall 2021 semester. Nearly three-quarters of the faculty supported a no-confidence motion directed toward the trustees.

There’s an interesting anecdote in Jonathan Coley’s book. Belmont had long held the same “traditional” stance on sexuality that other Christian Colleges had held. The student organization that had formed in support of LGBTQ+ inclusion had argued that Christian schools should be places where tolerance and community are key. When a particularly influential donor and trustee took those arguments seriously, it resulted in a change in trustee policy. Not only has Belmont not suffered as a result of this change, it is known as one of the thriving educational institutions in the Nashville area.

It raises the possibility that Christian Colleges can find a path to LGBTQ+ inclusion. Rather than seeing the Equality Act as a cause to be battled against, they could see it as the potential path to new students who want a vibrant, faith-based education but refuse to put up with discrimination as a key component of the Christian College. There really isn’t any market distinctive to be gained by being just as intransigent as every other Christian College. Change won’t happen without struggle, but brave leadership (or, in its absence, action by students and faculty) can make real progress happen.

Methodists Wrestle With Diversity Instead of Imposing Uniformity

I have spent nearly half of the past 30 years as a member of the United Methodist Church (the rest of the time I was Nazarene or Church of God — Anderson). I have been in Methodist churches in rural Kansas, urban Oregon, and now Michigan. It is no surprise that these three churches were very different in their temperament, their theology, and their politics. That’s not even getting into the distinctions between the former Evangelical United Brethren churches which maintain a unique culture fifty years after merging into the UMC.

I recently read research outlining that 80% of Methodist congregations are located in the South or Midwest. No doubt those regional dynamics play a role in how people think about what it means to be Methodist. Then there is the urban-rural distinctions. Urban Methodists are different from Rural Methodists and likely to have a very different set of issues that motivate them. Clergy take different positions than do rank and file members.

There’s also a distinction to be made between those people who are multi-generational Methodists and those who happen to find themselves comfortable in a local congregation yet grew up Baptist or Catholic or nothing at all. There are also significant differences between older Methodists and their younger counterparts. The former look back at the days when the congregation was bigger and the church played a significant role in the community. The younger generation wants a vital faith experience that speaks to the world in which they live.

People are part of Methodist churches because they support their community or they want to serve those in need or they want to better understand their Bible or because it’s where their primary social circle is centered. Or sometimes all of these at once.

This diversity I’m exploring is a feature of the United Methodists, not a bug.

That feature is what has brought about a specially called single-purpose general conference in St. Louis over the next few days. Called in response to the 2016 General Conference, it is a way to explore the varied positions that exist within the denomination regarding LGBTQ issues — how the church views sexuality, whether or not to ordain LGBTQ clergy, and whether to permit same-sex marriages to be performed by Methodist clergy or in local congregations. For a great overview, you can’t beat this piece (or any other, for that matter) by Emily McFarlan Miller of the Religion News Service.

As I have considered the various plans that are under consideration this week, I have developed two guiding principles. First, a good solution must protect the diversity that exists within the denomination. Second, nobody should be forced into a position that violates their own sense of integrity.

The first principle would serve to legitimize what we already know. There is a wide range of theological perspectives on LGBTQ questions within the denomination’s membership. We must avoid the temptation to search for winners and losers. We must not villainize those on the other side as unbiblical or homophobic. The delegates in St. Louis should be trying to discern God’s best vision for the future of the UMC. Ideally, that precludes those who want to take a “my way or the highway” approach. There has been far too much talk of schism before the conversations even got underway.

The second principle follows from this. Legitimizing difference means finding ways of resolving conflict that neither force people into positions (i.e., conducting a same-sex wedding, accepting a gay pastor) nor seek to punish those who act out of conscience (suspension without pay, removal of credentials). Any efforts to create uniformity through force, coercion, or sanction are not in the Spirit of the early church.

There are four primary plans under discussion in St. Louis (our local Bishop, Dr. David Bard, did a great explainer video).

The Connectional Plan creates two Methodist churches — one affirming and one traditional. Local congregations would align with one of these two bodies regardless of where they are located. The varied logistical nightmares of assemblies and councils make this solution untenable. While it protects my second principle, it is a shallow version of the first.

The Simple plan removes the Discipline language about homosexuality being inconsistent with Christian teaching as well as any restrictions on ordination or marriages. The Traditional plan retains the language and increases the penalties for violation of existing Discipline rules. Either of these two options falls short of my second principle.

That leaves me with what the Bishops call the One Church plan. This option allows individual conferences and boards of ordained ministry to resolve the question of ordaining LGBT clergy. It allows individual clergy and congregations to resolve the questions regarding same-sex marriage. The One Church plan affirms the diversity of the UMC while providing freedom to local jurisdictions on how they plan to proceed.

What is the likely impact of such a solution in the years to come? It is frankly hard to predict. Yet there is reason to believe that it might not be as fraught as many are predicting. First, since Obergefell the general public has become far more accepting of same-sex marriage. The percentage of local congregants who have family members, friends, or coworkers who are LGBT is likely quite high. Second, the younger generation has already shifted on the same-sex marriage question. According to PRRI, a majority of millennial evangelicals support same-sex marriage as of 2017. Resolving, at least in part, the denomination’s stance on LGBTQ issues may help stem some of the generational loss impacting all religious groups.

I wrote on Twitter yesterday that I was thinking about #GC2019 with an eye toward the Catholic conference going on in Vatican City and while still reeling from the horrific news of the last few months about the Southern Baptist Convention, Harvest Bible Chapel, the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, or Willow Creek. Those examples show us how far our churches need to go to address the critical challenges of our day, especially on issues of sexuality and human dignity.

I’m sure many friends will see the One Church Plan as half a loaf because it still allows UMC churches to be nonaffirming. Other friends will be similarly disappointed because they see any accommodation to broader social changes to be a failure of the church. This diversity is, as I said earlier, one of the great strengths of the UMC. The challenge for us all is to embrace those differences while celebrating the core of what we all have in common.

The people called Methodists have always been a diverse bunch and will continue to be so. That’s not a bad thing because the world is made up of the same kinds of diverse folks.

If the United Methodist Church can acknowledge its internal diversity while maintaining the dignity of its member bodies, we will find the opportunity to stand in witness during these changing time by truly “Making Disciples of Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the World”