By Justin Lee
October 24 2016
________________________________________________________________________________
Earlier this month, Time magazine reported that
InterVarsity USA, an influential Christian organization with chapters on
667 college campuses, was planning to fire all its employees who
support same-sex marriage. InterVarsity immediately responded on social
media, calling the article “wrong” and suggesting that there was no
story to report, because InterVarsity's views hadn't changed.
It was a blatantly misleading response. The new policy is real, and as Time accurately noted, it concerns employees’ moral and theological views on marriage, not civil marriage policies. InterVarsity is “involuntarily terminating” staff who do not agree with the “substance and conclusions” of a new 20-page theological document — one that says, among other things, that “same-sex relationships,” including marriage, are morally wrong.
This isn’t just about regulating what staff can do or teach. Staff are being told they must personally agree with the views in this document; if they don’t, they must report themselves and leave their job in two weeks. In its 75-year history, InterVarsity has never taken this “believe and behave” approach to any other area of theological disagreement; as Rev. Dr. Ken Fong put it to Sojourners magazine, “It feels like the first time ever that InterVarsity is policing the mind.”
The policy, which was developed largely in secret and sprung upon staff this summer, is staggering in its impact. Until now, staff members were required only to agree with a single-page Statement of Agreement outlining widely held beliefs among Christians across denominations. Now keeping their jobs requires personally agreeing with a 20-page “Theology of Human Sexuality” paper which, among other things, condemns “compulsive masturbation” and “same-sex relationships”; mandates specific interpretations of a number of Bible passages; and seems to condemn merely identifying as an LGBT person, referencing another InterVarsity document that criticizes “persons with same-sex attraction” for “label[ing] themselves as having a gay identity.”
Many staff members, some of whom have been with the organization their entire adult lives, are outraged. But if they speak up, they face losing their livelihood in an instant for questioning the policy.
What’s going on here? Why the sudden change — and in such a draconian way?
Part of the story is that InterVarsity already had a rocky relationship with its LGBT students and staff. Although some InterVarsity staff members — the ones most targeted by this policy — have been affirming of LGBT students, many others have preached at LGBT students, made them feel unwelcome, or even pressured them into reorientation therapy.
But the other part of the story reveals a larger trend in American evangelicalism: Many evangelical leaders, including those within InterVarsity, simply don’t know very much about LGBT people. They haven’t read books by LGBT Christians or LGBT-affirming Christian scholars, and their daily interaction with LGBT people is often close to nonexistent or limited to a small group of people with experiences far outside of the mainstream even for LGBT evangelicals.
These ill-informed leaders look at LGBT people largely as a theological issue. In their minds, the Bible is clear in condemning “homosexuality,” and greater societal acceptance is something to be pushed back on as sinful rather than embraced as progress. Evangelicals are famously countercultural, so this is a resonant narrative for them. Unless something convinces InterVarsity leaders to spend more time getting to know and learning about LGBT people in a real and nuanced way, it’s unlikely this attitude will change anytime soon.
This lack of practical knowledge about LGBT people comes across as oddly two-faced messaging. In public statements and emails to staff about the policy, InterVarsity says it “love[s] and welcome[s] LGBTQI students and faculty” and that it wants to be a safe place for them that “recognizes [their] dignity and personhood.” This is strikingly different from the tone of the internal documents staff are being asked to affirm, which fixate only on the sexual aspect of LGBT relationships and make no reference to LGBT identity except in negative terms. InterVarsity leadership apparently sees no conflict here, but it couldn’t be plainer to those of us who are or know LGBT people.
InterVarsity wants to paint this as simply a religious organization taking a theological position, but I know better. Twenty years ago, I was in InterVarsity myself. I was newly out, trying desperately to figure out how to understand my sexual orientation in the context of my devout Christian faith. InterVarsity welcomed me at first, but that welcome came with a lot of anti-LGBT attitudes that I didn’t have the confidence to stand up to or walk away from. The InterVarsity staff members I interacted with told me I not only must be celibate, but must somehow stop being gay altogether in order to please God. Faced with the impossible task of ceasing to be myself, I went through major depression that nearly cost me my life.
InterVarsity has the right to take whatever theological positions it wants to on sex and marriage. But as I know well, many LGBT kids have been deeply wounded by InterVarsity staff — not because of a theological disagreement about marriage but because staff with no working knowledge of LGBT people dehumanized and shamed them, making them feel like their very existence was an abomination. That goes beyond theology; that’s abuse. And if InterVarsity goes through with this policy, firing staff for being “too affirming” while taking no real action to stop abuse that’s been going on for 20 years, that’s beyond negligence. It’s sinful, and I don’t use that word lightly.
Today, as executive director of the Gay Christian Network, I work for greater LGBT acceptance in spaces like InterVarsity — trying to ensure that tomorrow’s kids don’t have to endure what I did. Often I find that dialogue and education can accomplish a lot. But sometimes an organization needs to feel pressure to do the right thing. Unless InterVarsity begins to feel that pressure, I’m not convinced they care enough about their LGBT students to change course.
The negative response to InterVarsity’s decision continues to build, though. Already, over 50 InterVarsity Press authors have come out against the policy, and InterVarsity students and alumni have launched Change.org petitions to ask for the policy to be rescinded.
So far, InterVarsity seems to be just waiting out the clock, hoping people will forget about the controversy in light of election news. But LGBT Christian leaders and allies of affected InterVarsity staff aren’t willing to let this happen quietly. Because if InterVarsity can purge and silence staff across the country, harming countless LGBT people in the process, and not experience negative repercussions for it, that means bad news for all of us and what may be coming down the pike from other organizations. This matters.
A list of petitions, articles, and other ways to make your voice heard can be found at GCN.re/ivresponse.
JUSTIN LEE is the executive director of the Gay Christian Network.
Read more articles from The Advocate, here.
It was a blatantly misleading response. The new policy is real, and as Time accurately noted, it concerns employees’ moral and theological views on marriage, not civil marriage policies. InterVarsity is “involuntarily terminating” staff who do not agree with the “substance and conclusions” of a new 20-page theological document — one that says, among other things, that “same-sex relationships,” including marriage, are morally wrong.
This isn’t just about regulating what staff can do or teach. Staff are being told they must personally agree with the views in this document; if they don’t, they must report themselves and leave their job in two weeks. In its 75-year history, InterVarsity has never taken this “believe and behave” approach to any other area of theological disagreement; as Rev. Dr. Ken Fong put it to Sojourners magazine, “It feels like the first time ever that InterVarsity is policing the mind.”
The policy, which was developed largely in secret and sprung upon staff this summer, is staggering in its impact. Until now, staff members were required only to agree with a single-page Statement of Agreement outlining widely held beliefs among Christians across denominations. Now keeping their jobs requires personally agreeing with a 20-page “Theology of Human Sexuality” paper which, among other things, condemns “compulsive masturbation” and “same-sex relationships”; mandates specific interpretations of a number of Bible passages; and seems to condemn merely identifying as an LGBT person, referencing another InterVarsity document that criticizes “persons with same-sex attraction” for “label[ing] themselves as having a gay identity.”
Many staff members, some of whom have been with the organization their entire adult lives, are outraged. But if they speak up, they face losing their livelihood in an instant for questioning the policy.
What’s going on here? Why the sudden change — and in such a draconian way?
Part of the story is that InterVarsity already had a rocky relationship with its LGBT students and staff. Although some InterVarsity staff members — the ones most targeted by this policy — have been affirming of LGBT students, many others have preached at LGBT students, made them feel unwelcome, or even pressured them into reorientation therapy.
But the other part of the story reveals a larger trend in American evangelicalism: Many evangelical leaders, including those within InterVarsity, simply don’t know very much about LGBT people. They haven’t read books by LGBT Christians or LGBT-affirming Christian scholars, and their daily interaction with LGBT people is often close to nonexistent or limited to a small group of people with experiences far outside of the mainstream even for LGBT evangelicals.
These ill-informed leaders look at LGBT people largely as a theological issue. In their minds, the Bible is clear in condemning “homosexuality,” and greater societal acceptance is something to be pushed back on as sinful rather than embraced as progress. Evangelicals are famously countercultural, so this is a resonant narrative for them. Unless something convinces InterVarsity leaders to spend more time getting to know and learning about LGBT people in a real and nuanced way, it’s unlikely this attitude will change anytime soon.
This lack of practical knowledge about LGBT people comes across as oddly two-faced messaging. In public statements and emails to staff about the policy, InterVarsity says it “love[s] and welcome[s] LGBTQI students and faculty” and that it wants to be a safe place for them that “recognizes [their] dignity and personhood.” This is strikingly different from the tone of the internal documents staff are being asked to affirm, which fixate only on the sexual aspect of LGBT relationships and make no reference to LGBT identity except in negative terms. InterVarsity leadership apparently sees no conflict here, but it couldn’t be plainer to those of us who are or know LGBT people.
InterVarsity wants to paint this as simply a religious organization taking a theological position, but I know better. Twenty years ago, I was in InterVarsity myself. I was newly out, trying desperately to figure out how to understand my sexual orientation in the context of my devout Christian faith. InterVarsity welcomed me at first, but that welcome came with a lot of anti-LGBT attitudes that I didn’t have the confidence to stand up to or walk away from. The InterVarsity staff members I interacted with told me I not only must be celibate, but must somehow stop being gay altogether in order to please God. Faced with the impossible task of ceasing to be myself, I went through major depression that nearly cost me my life.
InterVarsity has the right to take whatever theological positions it wants to on sex and marriage. But as I know well, many LGBT kids have been deeply wounded by InterVarsity staff — not because of a theological disagreement about marriage but because staff with no working knowledge of LGBT people dehumanized and shamed them, making them feel like their very existence was an abomination. That goes beyond theology; that’s abuse. And if InterVarsity goes through with this policy, firing staff for being “too affirming” while taking no real action to stop abuse that’s been going on for 20 years, that’s beyond negligence. It’s sinful, and I don’t use that word lightly.
Today, as executive director of the Gay Christian Network, I work for greater LGBT acceptance in spaces like InterVarsity — trying to ensure that tomorrow’s kids don’t have to endure what I did. Often I find that dialogue and education can accomplish a lot. But sometimes an organization needs to feel pressure to do the right thing. Unless InterVarsity begins to feel that pressure, I’m not convinced they care enough about their LGBT students to change course.
The negative response to InterVarsity’s decision continues to build, though. Already, over 50 InterVarsity Press authors have come out against the policy, and InterVarsity students and alumni have launched Change.org petitions to ask for the policy to be rescinded.
So far, InterVarsity seems to be just waiting out the clock, hoping people will forget about the controversy in light of election news. But LGBT Christian leaders and allies of affected InterVarsity staff aren’t willing to let this happen quietly. Because if InterVarsity can purge and silence staff across the country, harming countless LGBT people in the process, and not experience negative repercussions for it, that means bad news for all of us and what may be coming down the pike from other organizations. This matters.
A list of petitions, articles, and other ways to make your voice heard can be found at GCN.re/ivresponse.
JUSTIN LEE is the executive director of the Gay Christian Network.
Read more articles from The Advocate, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.