Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Christian Colleges and GLBT issues
The treatment of GLBT students and faculty by conservative Christian colleges is going to continue to be a major point of contention between those colleges and the broader academy for the foreseeable future. Joshua Wolff has written a provocative essay, "Where 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Remains," for Inside Higher Ed. Much of it consists of his own story struggling with his sexual identity in an environment that seemed to suggest he didn't belong. But when he gets to recommendations for remedying the situation, things get a little ominous. An excerpt:
[A]ccrediting bodies that govern colleges and programs must step in and say “enough” when schools use religion to hide from accountability for policies and programs that can cause psychological harm. Religious freedom is essential and part of the backbone of this country. Yet, religious freedoms do not give leeway for one group to be oppressed or discriminated against, especially when such individuals may experience harm as a result (e.g., depression, anxiety, bullying, etc.) and are already marginalized.
Well, I think sometimes religious freedom actually does permit one group to be discriminated against by another. Putting barriers on religious freedom whenever a person experiences harm is dangerous, especially when the harm can largely be avoided by choosing one of hundreds of other colleges in a robust marketplace. On the broader point, though, about the nature of Christian colleges' treatment of gay students and faculty, Wheaton College provost Stan Jones has written a response. An excerpt:
Based on this understanding of the morality of homosexual conduct, many religious traditionalists question the formulation of sexual identity implicit in Wolff's argument. On the one hand, we dissent from the presumption that one’s sexual attractions and identifications must be lived out in behavior to have meaning. Thus, an individual can both have a stable sense of same-sex attraction and a commitment to chastity based on choosing compliance to the moral teachings of Scripture. We have just, on this basis, welcomed back to campus our alumnus Wesley Hill to address our entire student body, who describes himself as "a nonpracticing but still-desiring homosexual Christian." Such individuals are not required to lie about themselves.
On the other hand, traditionalists also dissent from the inclination so common today to accept the anchoring of one's entire identity around sexual orientation. The very depiction in Wolff's article of GLBTQ individuals as a discrete class, as if their sexual inclinations and orientations were the linchpin of their very being, is made problematic in the context of religious commitments that demand higher allegiance.
Both essays are well worth reading.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/05/christian-colleges-and-glbt-issues.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
"On the other hand, traditionalists also dissent from the inclination so common today to accept the anchoring of one's entire identity around sexual orientation."
It seems to me that within Catholicism, at least, heterosexuals are basically expected to anchor their identity around their sexual orientation. Women are still basically expected to be mothers, and men are expected to be fathers. Even priests are called "father," and although the reasoning is murky and I don't pretend to understand it, at least part of the reason homosexual men are excluded from the priesthood appears to be that they are not "father types." Gay men, because of their sexual orientation are claimed not to be able to relate to men and women in a way that would make them "fatherly" priests. The ideal woman is the "Blessed Mother." God is our father. The Church is the "bride of Christ." A great many Christian metaphors are in terms of father-son, father-children, husband-wife.
I have not read Wesley Hill's book (Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality), but I understand he considers a homosexual orientation to be "brokenness." Obviously if one views a homosexual orientation to be "objectively disordered" or a "more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil," one would "dissent from the inclination so common today to accept the anchoring of one's entire identity around sexual orientation". . . IF that orientation is homosexual. But I think it is disingenuous to claim that a heterosexual's orientation is not a major component of his or her identity. I think it is pretty much a lie to say to homosexuals, "Don't be all that upset about our position on homosexuality, because really, you know, sexual orientation is not all that important." Better to be honest and say, "Face up to the fact that there's something very, very wrong with you, and if you don't renounce it and acknowledge you are intrinsically disordered, you don't belong in our school or our church."
So I disagree with Joshua Wolff. He picked the wrong school to attend. And I don't know why Stan Jones gets into things like twin studies and the origins of homosexuality. Does anybody know the cause of heterosexuality?