The Christian response to secularization, where the process cannot not be stopped, has historically been separation. Indeed this is the only strategy compatible with obedience to God. The loss of a Christian denomination to orthodoxy, once it became clear that the denomination is not likely to be recovered and the falling away from orthodox belief and practice is too severe to be tolerated, has led to the formation of new denominations, nondenominational churches, and parachurch organizations. And similarly with the secularization of public schools and colleges, which led to the establishment of Christian schools and homeschooling, while Christian charities have been in some measure an alternative to the welfare state. With society at large and the state ruling it no longer Christian, it has still been possible to maintain a Christian sub-culture in which God was obeyed and faithful Christians could live in that obedience.
But as we move further into the twenty-first century, this essentially defensive strategy may be failing, as the cultural left (feminists, homosexual activists, and a militant anti-religious secularism) enacts its values into law, both legislatively and through court decisions, making past resistance in considerable measure illegal. In Europe and Canada this has been done through the use of “hate speech” laws and regulations, making expression of exclusive Christian truth and morality illegal. A similar attack on religious education has achieved some success in Europe, and increasingly, in Canada, with Christian schools unable to teach exclusivist Christian doctrine and morality, really eliminating the reason for existence of Christian schools. But the gravest threat to religious liberty for Christians is antidiscrimination law, which deprives Christian institutions of their ability to function on a Christian basis, requiring the hiring and retention of persons who do not comply with Christian doctrine and morality. Most commonly this pertains to homosexuality, but can concern any area of Christianity with which the cultural left disagrees.
As noted in an earlier article, the current threat, which may be a pressing problem very soon, concerns the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), making sexual orientation a nondiscrimination category in federal law. Currently, the proposed law exempts religiously affiliated organizations (although certainly not those businesses owned by Christians which endeavor to run their business on a Christian basis). But this may not survive legal attacks by the ACLU and like-minded secularists, who want the exemption taken away as “discriminatory.” The result if that occurs will be that Christian educational, charitable and publication and broadcasting institutions will no longer able to require Christian morality of their staffs. This would eliminate much of the Christian sub-culture at one stroke.
The Obama Administration is attempting the same thing in another way using the HHS contraceptive/abortifacient mandate. In both cases, Christian organizations (and any other religious organizations that share the same beliefs) are legally required to incorporate into their functioning policies that contradict the faith and morality they are committed to. This is not merely incongruous, but in the case of contraceptive/abortifacient coverage, must be directly sinful, since the organization is not removed from ultimately sponsoring the coverage. Likewise, a Christian organization which does not require Christian morality of its staff must also be sinful in its functioning, since it principal reason for being is to offer service to God, which cannot involve tolerance of sin.
Positions taken on the ENDA by religious bodies vary across the religious spectrum based on the position taken with respect to marriage and the sexual revolution. Thus the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in a letter noted in the earlier article, identified the problems of ENDA as establishing a behavior based protected category, rather than one with immutable characteristics (such as sex or race), and the likely use of the new nondiscrimination status of homosexuals as a legal basis for undermining traditional marriage. The Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, in a 2010 statement, likewise noted the problem with a behavior based nondiscrimination category , and indicated a loss of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the workplace as Bibles, Bible verses posted to work cubicle walls, and any expression of Christian morality might be forbidden in the workplace. The statement noted as well that such problems already appear in those states which already have ENDA-type laws on the books.
In contrast, liberal religious bodies, despite their claimed commitment to diversity and freedom, have been enthusiastic supports of the ENDA in the years that it has been before Congress, ignoring, perhaps even favoring, the loss of religious and personal liberty that it entails. The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society supported the ENDA as early as 1999, (although the United Methodist Church failed to provide support to the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association faced with the demand that it host lesbian ceremonies). In 2010, the (Quaker) Friends Committee on National Legislation, which also supports the bill, listed 44 religious bodies supporting the measuring, including the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA). Don’t count on these bodies to speak out in support of religious liberty where it offends the cultural left’s sensibilities.
A recent article by the Witherspoon Institute on the version of the ENDA being currently advanced noted general reasons why ENDA should not be passed. It establishes sexual orientation as a “suspect class” presumed in law to be a victim of oppression, which the Supreme Court did not do even its its stridently pro-homosexual decisions from 1996 onward, and also notes the establishment of a “suspect class” based on behavior rather than an immutable characteristic (such as race, sex or age). But the nation’s old-line religious bodies seem unmoved by these considerations or the threat to religious liberty. Their commitment to sexual liberation overrides any concern for classical freedoms of religion, speech, and the judgments of employers as to what is best for their organizations. The confidence that these faith groups have that their values are enlightened and superior evidently means that they should be held not only by themselves, but also, using the the force of the law, they should apply to all of society as well. The Christian (or as they might say, the fundamentalist) subculture of educational, charitable, broadcast and publishing organizations that arose following the liberal consolidation of power in the old-line churches will not be suffered to live.
The world may not seem suddenly different if the ENDA is enacted without a religious exemption, and yet it will be. Christian social service, an important part of in some measure realizing the kingdom of God in this world and this age, will no longer be possible. It is vital to our faithfulness to God not to continue to function in such circumstances; organizations faced with a legal requirement to compromise with sin should either be closed, or converted to purely secular organizations, as has happened with some adoption services. The worst outcome is for an institution to continue to function as a Christian institution, facilitating activities the Bible clearly condemns as immoral. In addition to being disobedient, this will have the effect of changing belief over time, which is surely an intended effect.
If orthodox Christians are deprived of their parachurch institutions, and only worship services are tolerated by the state, then we will remain as a faithful community, and perhaps begin to argue that we should be able to serve God as we believe he requires, regardless of how offended others profess themselves to be. The partisans of a nonreligious society and the sexual revolution that is destroying religious liberty take no less non-negotiable positions, and a nonideological state should not prefer one side over the other. Most importantly, we will continue as faithful disciples of Christ until he returns.
No comments yet
