Why Liberty of Conscience Must Exist for Individuals

The relentless assault of the LGBT revolution, its successful intimidation of Republican governors and legislatures and consequent stigmatizing of religious liberty as oppressive; the effective loss of Christian education that would have resulted from the passage of SB-1146 in California, which proposed that genuinely Christian colleges be forbidden in that state; and the very realistic assessment that the election of Donald Trump has only given traditional Christians a reprieve from the catastrophic loss of religious liberty that would have attended the election of Hillary Clinton, a Democratic Congress, and a permanently liberal Supreme Court, have all resulted in a desire to find compromise and accommodation with LGBT demands while there is still some leverage to do so.

With SB-1146 firmly in mind, the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities and the National Associations of Evangelicals are pursuing an attempted settlement of this severe conflict, advanced under the name “Fairness for All.” Inspired by the closely negotiated sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) law enacted in Utah, it proposes to exempt houses of worship and as many religious institutions as thought politically possible from the effects SOGI laws, which the courts interpret as prohibiting discrimination against homosexual behavior, while leaving private individuals and for-profit Christian businesses in the public sphere under the full force of SOGI laws with no exemptions.

The bleak long-term possibility, in which Christians may again be faced with a Democratic administration and Congress, and possibly a permanently liberal Supreme Court, and thus no leverage for action, is not unrealistic, but we must keep as our first consideration faithfulness to God. The only reason Christians seek exemption from SOGI laws is because we cannot compromise with sin – to contribute to or cooperate with sinful behavior is itself sinful (Matt. 18:7), and this remains the case regardless of how law or society changes.

Compromise with SOGI laws leaves Christians other adherents of traditional morality in an untenable and finally incoherent position. If Christians cannot contribute to sinful behavior and yet remain faithful to God, then not only Christian institutions but also individuals in business and the professions cannot facilitate sinful behavior without being unfaithful to God. When there is no protection from SOGI laws in a given occupation, then that occupation is effectively closed to faithful Christians.

The key moral question in considering matters of conscience is “am I participating in sin?” A private merchant or professional worker clearly is sinning if he or she facilitates sinful behavior, just as a professedly Christian institution is sinning if it facilitates or tolerates sinful behavior, and everyone in the organization is likewise implicated in sin because they are part of an unfaithful institution. But with employees in a secular business or secular institution, on the other hand, the individual Christian is not sinning if the organization tolerates or contributes to sin, if this is incidental to the organization’s purpose. A secular organization is part of the world, and Christians cannot withdraw from the world. Similarly the government now promotes same-sex relations, but this does not make government employment sinful, for the same reason. But this logic does not carry over into private business and the professions, where the private merchant, Christian professional or individual worker may be required to accommodate sin. In the sphere of private business and the professions, it is the Christian individual, not a secular institution, who is the actor, and thus is the sinner where sinful action is required.

The reason for Christian educational institutions in particular thus becomes unclear. What occupations can their graduates hold, if in the world of work they are required to facilitate behavior the Bible calls sin, and even in “Christian” institutions none besides clergy and religious instructors are exempt from SOGI employment requirements (the only constitutional protection now allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court)? And what is the point of churches, clergy, and religious schools teaching doctrines against sexual behavior and separation from sin which cannot be applied?

The threat to conscience of SOGI laws is surely the most crucial issue for Christians in America today, since we must not sin, and we must not allow the Christian subculture in America to acquiesce under pressure, become corrupted by sin, and thus be absorbed by the world. Ryan Anderson and Robert George discussed why SOGI laws are bad in themselves in an incisive discussion of proposed SOGI laws in Indiana, nine monthly after the gutting of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to exclude conscientious objection against homosexuality. These laws make sexual behavior and self-will about sexual identity protected characteristics, against which there can be no adverse judgment (i.e., discrimination), not just discrimination against the people possessing those characteristics. Thus bakers not only have to serve homosexual customers (which no one is objecting to anyway), but must also accommodate their sinful behavior. The condemnation of immoral sexual behavior in traditional morality is thus held by the law to be cruel and irrational, and adherents of traditional morality are “prejudiced.” Naturally, then, any exemptions given are liable to be withdrawn over time, since they are exemptions allowing cruelty.

It is truth and reality that should govern human relations, not self-will. Realty can be painful – it is not cruel simply because each person cannot always have what he or she wants, however badly he or she wants it. But since self-will is made the final standard of justice in SOGI laws, bending to sexual self-determination overrides all other values. As John Stonestreet of the Colson Center noted in a recent Breakpoint commentary, SOGI laws (staggeringly) override all First Amendment freedoms – they “threaten the freedoms of Americans to speak, teach, and live out their deeply held convictions in public life without fear of lawsuits or government coercion.”

Anderson, George, and other prominent Christian leaders recently signed a statement against compromise with SOGI laws, “Protect Freedom, Reject Coercion,” pointing out that they are not needed, and only serve (as they are intended to serve) to punish traditional religious believers who consider homosexual behavior and transgender denial of reality to be the sinful choices of God’s image bearers who should be treated with “love, compassion, and respect.” This is of course the same claim as the popular Christian formula “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” It is Biblical, and SOGI laws deny it. By supporting modified SOGI laws, whether they know it or like it or not, Christians are essentially conceding that this Biblical position is wrong, and that people should, in many cases the wider world, be required to facilitate sin, and thus be required to sin.

As this writer noted in an article at the end of last year, religious belief and religious action cannot be as clearly separated as narrow interpretations of religious freedom would have it, and this is especially so for conscientious objection, where the only “action” is declining action. The right to conscientious objection should not be infringed – people should not be required to take action against their consciences. If they are required to act against conscience, then religious beliefs are clearly being penalized. Since, as noted above, facilitating sin is sin itself, to support SOGI laws amounts to either advocating sin (i.e., holding that people should contribute to sinful behavior), or else denying that the behavior that SOGI laws require is sinful. The former possibility is simply an inconceivable one for Christians to take, the latter runs against both Jesus’ words in the Bible (which say that we must not cause stumbling blocks to righteousness in the lives of others) and common sense (which says that it is wrong to contribute to what one understands to be evil).

The way forward for faithful Christians may be difficult in the years ahead. If the opponents of liberty of conscience (who now include powerful corporations as well as the news media, academy, and entertainment industry) are intransigent and successful, faithful Christians will have to live as an underclass, with much of business and the professions closed to them. This situation seemed to be impending before the recent election. Now, with Republican control of Congress and the White House, and good hope for a more favorable Supreme Court, is certainly the time for religious freedom activism to prevent this from happening. As Robert George pointed out after the gutting of Indiana’s RFRA, political leaders have been intimidated by LGBT liberation. Christians and other moral traditionalists must stand for righteousness in what they say and do, taking the pain and penalty. But perhaps, despite Donald Trump’s election, the catastrophic loss of religious freedom may still become a reality in just a few years. What we must always keep uppermost in our lives is sinlessness before God, both in the individual lives that we lead, and in those Christians that we fellowship with. SOGI laws, whether weak or strong, do not allow us to legally do this, and they should be absolutely resisted.