Christian Integrity in a Hostile Culture

As the West’s civilizational conflict over Christian faith and morals continues and intensifies, faithful Christians need to note that we have entered a new phase, one in which institutional bastions of the Judeo-Christian tradition, such as the Catholic Church, the Republican Party, heretofore conservative Christian colleges and schools, and to some extent the American nation as a whole, may become less robust in their social conservatism, neutralized, or in some cases, hostile. Two major events that will affect just how hostile the future environment will be are the second session of the Synod on the Family this fall at Rome, where liberal bishops will endeavor to relax formally sanctioned practice, if not ultimate doctrine, concerning sexual morality (e.g., contraception, divorce, and homosexuality), thus opening the door to widespread practical acceptance of the sexual revolution, as has happened in many Protestant churches, and the 2016 American presidential election. If the election results in a Democratic victory or a successful Republican candidate cool to social conservatism, it could eliminate social conservatism from the party platform, as has happened in other western countries (such as Great Britain or Canada). This would likely result in a clear liberal majority on the Supreme Court, and the end of what protection the courts offer to a full scale assault on religious freedom and social conservatism. The importance of this election was noted recently by IRD’s Chelsen Vicari, and conservative journalist Marvin Olasky, who observed that if the 2008 and 2012 elections were two strikes against American social conservatism, the 2016 election could be three strikes, establishing a liberal regime in the nation for the foreseeable future.

It is becoming very clear that what this would mean is the destruction of the Christian subculture that developed in the twentieth century as the nation became more secular (in part by Supreme Court decrees). Tools to do it include the loss of tax exemption for Christian organizations, loss of accreditation for Christian educational institutions (which in many states means they cannot function), business and professional licenses that require violation of Christian morality, regulatory requirements (such as requiring acceptance of homosexuality by federal contractors), and elimination of laws protecting religious freedom (now a high priority for the ACLU, the homosexual leadership, and the corporate giants now in their toe). The proposed “Equality Act” being offered by Democrats in Congress appears to be a comprehensive approach to mandating social acceptance of homosexuality in the wake of the Supreme Court’s mandating of same-sex marriage. It would nationally mandate acceptance of homosexuality in employment, housing, credit, education, and “facility access” for transgendered persons to rest rooms.

Christian colleges are already beginning to experience tremendous pressure to abandon the social conservatism that is integral to Christian faith and morals. And the general, and certainly the Christian public is now much more aware that businesses are required in many jurisdictions to provide goods and services that contribute to homosexual behavior, on penalty of ruinous fines. Perhaps less well appreciated is that business and professional licenses, whether granted by the state or by professional associations, may also now contain clauses that mandate providing goods and services on demand that contribute to homosexual behavior. The final result of this assault if it is successful will be the end of specifically Christian social services, whether charitable, educational, medical, publishing, or broadcasting, with only churches able to function according the Christian standards, with even churches, families, and individual Christians harassed where their exclusive beliefs and practices conflict with social liberalism.

While sorrow and fear are entirely reasonable responses to this new situation, they cannot affect our ultimate faith, which is based on God’s Word, the Bible, which cannot change regardless of the circumstances. We need to continually remind ourselves that we are not involved in a mere political or cultural struggle, but in a religious struggle, which can never be given up, because our faith has a transcendent source. Robert Gagnon, author of the definitive work defending the traditional interpretation of the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality, offered very solid counsel following the recent same-sex marriage decision.

Even more basic than Gagnon’s excellent review of a Biblical understanding of sexuality, we should remember the essentials of the Christian faith we are holding against secular assault (now advanced under the guise of the sexual revolution). The faith proclaimed in the Bible is faith in a supreme personal being, incarnate in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection to deliver from sin and its consequences, and repentance from every known sin as identified from the commandments of Christ and the apostles, and those moral precepts of the Old Testament reiterated in the New Testament. While there may not be absolute agreement among individual believers on the precise extent of moral precepts (e.g., how and when should Christians keep the Sabbath, whether there are and what are Biblical reasons for divorce and remarriage), such central precepts as the worship of only the Biblical God, respectful use of His name, restriction of sexual relations to marriage, maintenance of personal prayer, and meeting and fellowship with other Christians are so clear that the lack of them means that one must be presumed not to be a follower of Christ.

Life in Christ then consists of strict adherence to this faith, prayer, and fellowship with other believers, and testimony to the world, both in word and deed, of the truth that we bear from the Word of God. While we may see Christian organizations which have been faithful to God in the past deviate from obedience to God to the point we can no longer participate in them or support them, or state or societal requirements in behavior that believers cannot obey, our faith and practice cannot change to accommodate a world which has fallen away from the truth God has revealed. This commitment, which Christians of the past would have recognized as absolutely essential to being a follower of Christ, is not a strategy for the current difficult situation in which orthodox Christians find themselves, but simply the unchanging commitment to which God holds everyone who follows and serves Him.

It is entirely sufficient that all creatures ought to obey God regardless of any other considerations. But in justifying our obedience to God’s precepts regardless of the penalty, whether legal or social, we need to respond well to the polemic against religious freedom and liberty of conscience. There are common sense arguments that can justify liberty of conscience as at least a modus vivendi between adherents of adversary and competing ethics. It is obvious from the very nature of the demands of conscience (doing what is right, and rejecting what is wrong) that conscience should never be violated, regardless of the penalty. We must point out in the present conflict over Christian conscience exactly who it is that is “imposing” their views on whom. It is religious merchants (in the case of supplying goods and services supporting homosexuality), or businesses or medical professionals (in the case of providing goods and services that support abortion) who are being imposed on, i.e., required to take positive action they believe is wrong (i.e., sinful). As Christopher Tollefsen has noted, it may be necessary for a religiously neutral government to forbid religiously required action, but it should never require religiously forbidden action. Hurt feelings, or as the current homosexualist ideology more positively calls it, “dignity,” are not a reason to require action believed sinful or immoral. Not only is such a requirement wrong in itself, it clearly elevates the feelings of certain citizens over those of others.

We should not be afraid of the word “discrimination.” Is “religious freedom a license to discriminate?” No matter, “conscience” is more important than “discrimination,” because what is understood to be ultimately right and wrong is more important than injured feelings. “Conscience should be protected,” indeed “we ought to discriminate on the basis of conscience.” The true appeal being made against conscience, that religious freedom could justify racial discrimination, fails because racial discrimination was a cultural preference, not a religious precept, and the lame attempts to justify it religiously lack any clear basis in the Bible or the two thousand year Christian tradition. As this writer argued in an earlier article, only race (including “color” and “national origin”) should be an antidiscrimination category; others, in particular behavior based categories, and especially religious and sexual categories, should not be part of antidiscrimination law and policy, and in both cases, God’s commands in the Bible may require discrimination, which must be the overriding consideration for Christians. As this writer noted recently, there have historically been many religious exemptions in American law, and those now being claimed, concerning sexual morality and unborn life, are of the same gravity to believers as historic military exemptions, and of less immediate consequence to society (as military exemption affects the very survival of the nation). It is usually noted that religious objectors are not discriminating against persons in disfavored categories, but against the objectionable sexual (or religious) behaviors. This is true and important to say, but religion and any sexual category should not be antidiscrimination categories in any case.

It does appear that America’s Christians have their eyes wide open concerning the looming destruction of the Christian subculture and the penalizing of churches and believers. We may note in its defense that replacement government social services likely will not be as good, will have no spiritual component, and unlike laws and policies against racial discrimination, attack core religious doctrine, and thus free exercise. Commendably, people are girding for the legal battles ahead with practical suggestions; the Alliance Defending Freedom legal service organization and the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have a guide for Christian organizations in navigating the new hostile terrain. Senator Mike Lee’s First Amendment Defense Act, noted by IRD’s Matthew Maule early in the summer, would go far toward defending the Christian subculture, although like the way many Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are today interpreted, it protects religious freedom against government, not private action. The latter protection is crucial, but was defeated by corporate coercion in Arizona and Indiana. Presumably the proposed First Amendment law also will be vetoed by Obama if passed by Congress. A future administration may respond differently, and perseverance and courage against social pressure may eventually pay off. Certainly without these virtues there is no hope of stopping the coercive advance of social liberalism, or recovering religious freedom that has been lost.

But our real consideration is absolute: obedience to God. We may not ever sin (Acts 5:29), or compromise with sin (Matt. 18:7), nor participate in or support seriously compromised Christian organizations (II Thess. 3:6). This is echoed by statements from key catechisms. The Westminster Larger Catechism declares (Question 99) that “What God forbids, is at no time to be done; What he commands, is always our duty,” while the current Catechism of the Catholic Church declares (in discussing “the Proliferation of Sin” (1868) that “we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them.”

This means taking the penalty where legislative and legal efforts fail. Closing one’s business, surrendering one’s job, accepting or declining government funding, closing the school, charity, medical, publishing, or other Christian social service to which so much has been invested and which has done so much good, when it is required to compromise with sin. Christian organizations are primarily services to God, not organizations filling a secular function, and they should be allowed to function on a religious basis, according to religious precepts. And for individuals, as for organizations, there is no penalty, whether fines, prison, or whatever, which should move us to acquiesce to a state requirement to sin.

It is this commitment which will give Christians integrity in the coming years, no matter what the political outcome is. We owe this obedience first, and absolutely, to God. But it is also this commitment that will cause the world to see those Christian persons, churches, and organizations that remain faithful as distinctively Christian, that will testify to Christians themselves of their faithfulness, and attract people to the Christian faith. Without this commitment, we are being disobedient to God (an entirely sufficient reason to remain faithful) and on a path to demise, perhaps fairly quickly. And it is this commitment, along with all things, that God will work to His final victory and glory.