Ship of Fools: Intervarsity firing those who support SSM?

Thread: Intervarsity firing those who support SSM? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030843

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It started with this article in Time magazine, reporting that the American university group, Intervarsity (probably best known through their publishing arm, Intervarsity Press) were going to fire any staff who support same sex marriage (SSM).

Intervarsity then responded saying that the article in Time was inaccurate.

Yet it rumbles on with further comment with Christianity Today, amongst a number of other news outlets repeating the assertions made in the Time article.

I, for one, am a little confused. Are Intervarsity planning to fire those who support SSM or not?

If they are, how could that possibly be legal? I'm not particularly au fait with American law, but it seems to fall foul of any possible anti-discrimination law imaginable.

The very prospect makes me [Mad]

- human sexuality has never been a core part of any creed, catechism or confession of faith. The notion that it is becoming the de facto shibboleth of an imagined orthodoxy sends shudders down my spine.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I, for one, am a little confused. Are Intervarsity planning to fire those who support SSM or not?

If they are, how could that possibly be legal? I'm not particularly au fait with American law, but it seems to fall foul of any possible anti-discrimination law imaginable.

Intervarsity Christian Fellowship is a private religious organization. As such, they're typically given a wide latitude in requiring ideological adherence to their stated principles among those who work for them. To pick another example, when a church hires* clergy it's legal for them to engage in religious discrimination by insisting that clergy be adherents of their faith.

--------------------
*Churches typically hate this term when it comes to clergy. Feel free to substitute a verb more to your liking if you wish.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is too bad because IV serves college students. This is not going to endear them to that age cohort.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

There's a rather important line here. Christians should not be objecting to SSM being available in the state for those who choose to believe it is right - in the same way that Christians should not object to the state allowing the practice of all kinds of religious and philosophical beliefs in a plural society.

On the other hand, if Christian teaching precludes SSM for Christians, then a Christian organisation might well feel unable to support/employ those who do believe SSM for Christians is OK. And so far, I've yet to be anywhere near convinced that it is possible to square SSM with either Jesus' teaching or the rest of the NT - not to mention the OT.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

A lot of Christians think it is quite possible.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the other hand, if Christian teaching precludes SSM for Christians, then a Christian organisation might well feel unable to support/employ those who do believe SSM for Christians is OK. And so far, I've yet to be anywhere near convinced that it is possible to square SSM with either Jesus' teaching or the rest of the NT - not to mention the OT.

This is irrelevant as far as American discrimination law is concerned. The U.S. does not maintain a Department of Doctrine which decides what each religion really believes. If you believe your religion requires racial discrimination (for example) then the U.S. government will accept that as true (unless your own behavior contradicts this). The fact that it's your sincere religious belief doesn't necessarily give you an exemption from relevant laws, but the state will usually take your word about your stated beliefs.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'd be interested to know how UCCF (the equivalent in Britain to IVF) views this statement.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Vile, loveless, anti-Christian nonsense.

Ubi caritas non est, Deus ibi non est (to adapt the gradual for Maundy Thursday).

translation: where love is not, God is not there.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I am reminded of a joke I have heard twice, in different contexts.

A person (in one version, black, but here a partner in a SSM would be appropriate) starts to pray outside a church. "Lord, they wouldn't let me in to worship you. Help me to get in, please."
And the Lord answers, "My child, I wouldn't worry if I were you. I've been trying to get in for decades."

[ 11. October 2016, 20:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Racial discrimination is about what people ARE and have not chosen - which in turn has no moral implications any more than the differences in the genes between fair-haired (before age turned it white) blue-eyed me, and my dark-haired brown-eyed brother.

SSM - and acts of 'gay sex' generally - is about something people choose to do; and what people choose to do is necessarily subject to moral question, and possible disagreement in a plural society. Demanding agreement, and enforcing that agreement by law - on either side - is intolerance....

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No. Just no. Your statement puts LGBT+ as either a choice or a defect. Neither applies, because Science.
What you are saying is that millions of normal people must effectively curtail their lives because you* cannot accept reality.

*You meaning anyone who fits this catagory.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

It's like being left-handed.

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

Steve tries to make a distinction between discrimination against what people are, and discrimination against what they choose to do.

If such a distinction really existed in the case of homophobia, then straight people would never be affected by this prejudice. Yet most children and adolescents who are targeted by homophobic bullies are straight, and bullies use their often deliberate misperception (that the target is gay) as an excuse. (What is bothering the bullies? The target likes to read. The target is a top student. The target prefers classical music. If male, the target doesn't care about sports. If female, the target enjoys sports. On and on--the list of offenses against homophobes' "values" is endless.)

And people of any sexual orientation would not be at risk merely going about their business in public (for example, the female law student who had a kneecap broken in a homophobic attack while she was merely standing on a platform waiting for her BART train).

I'm fortunate--I've never been physically assaulted, although I was once threatened with violence and I can only guess that the creep was "thinking" or pretending to think, that I was a lesbian. I've been cursed and insulted by morons who think my hairstyle is a sexual statement. I may even have encountered some academic or professional discrimination on that basis, simply because I'm single and I like to keep my hair short for practical and aesthetic reasons. My sister, going about her job as a canvasser one summer, was actually spat at by a bicyclist the day after she got a new warm-weather haircut. (I believe that the idiotic nonsense about hairstyles and sexual minority status got much worse after the evangelicals decided to start campaigning against the so-called gay agenda.)

Nope, that argument about what people choose to do won't fly. People don't choose their sexual orientation, and it's both unreasonable and cruel to expect them to forgo loving relationships, or even short-term relationships, in order not to offend evangelicals' sensibilities.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Racial discrimination is about what people ARE and have not chosen - which in turn has no moral implications any more than the differences in the genes between fair-haired (before age turned it white) blue-eyed me, and my dark-haired brown-eyed brother.

SSM - and acts of 'gay sex' generally - is about something people choose to do; and what people choose to do is necessarily subject to moral question, and possible disagreement in a plural society. Demanding agreement, and enforcing that agreement by law - on either side - is intolerance....

The second paragraph is simply restating the love the sinner, hate the sin line. That was discredited ages ago, as it would deny LGBTetc people the right to sexual satisfaction with a preferred partner and force them into either a severely limited sex life, or to have one totally against their innate attraction. Neither is palatable.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
(I believe that the idiotic nonsense about hairstyles and sexual minority status got much worse after the evangelicals decided to start campaigning against the so-called gay agenda.)

Absodamnlutely.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
Steve tries to make a distinction between discrimination against what people are, and discrimination against what they choose to do.

If such a distinction really existed in the case of homophobia, then straight people would never be affected by this prejudice. Yet most children and adolescents who are targeted by homophobic bullies are straight, and bullies use their often deliberate misperception (that the target is gay) as an excuse.
[...]
And people of any sexual orientation would not be at risk merely going about their business in public (for example, the female law student who had a kneecap broken in a homophobic attack while she was merely standing on a platform waiting for her BART train).

What you seem to be talking about here are popular cultural perceptions rather than an evangelical theological approach. The two may be connected (less so in highly secularised Britain than in the USA, I imagine), but they aren't one and the same thing, or shouldn't be.

quote:

People don't choose their sexual orientation, and it's both unreasonable and cruel to expect them to forgo loving relationships, or even short-term relationships, in order not to offend evangelicals' sensibilities.

Is it about not offending evangelical sensibilities? AFAICS the actual problem is that for some reason Americans want to be associated with evangelical organisations even when their own beliefs have begun diverge from those of evangelicalism. To me this sounds like a recipe for dissatisfaction all round.

The tension is likely to increase, because the mainstream liberal and moderately evangelical organisations in the USA appear to be relatively weak, leaving parachurch outreach and evangelistic work primarily in more traditional evangelical hands. These dynamic organisations then end up employing and attracting people whose positions are ever more diverse, and that can work only up to a point.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As noted above, hard-line attitudes to sexuality and gender are also likely to alienate such evangelical groups from their target audience, if this research (admittedly British rather than American) is anything to go by.

Clearly IVF (and others) are using this issue as a "marker in the sand" against a growing secularism. They may see themselves as "making a stand for Biblical values" but, unfortunately, many of those around them will not understand them and many Christians will not agree with them.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Like racial difference, left-handedness has no moral implications about what people do. So no proper reason to question it.

Things DONE, or desired to be done, have moral implications; if you choose to think you live in a Richard Dawkins world, where there is no good and evil, right or wrong, and we all dance to the tune of uncaring DNA, fine. (Source; Dawkins' book "River out of Eden", and no subsequent writing by him has anywhere near disproved what he said there)

If instead you think you live in a purposeful creation, that makes a difference.

Do you believe God 'makes' people gay??

I'm personally not one of the people who believes in a 'Christian country' where Christian values are legally imposed on non-Christians; and I deeply regret that some Christians in the past disobeyed the actual NT teaching to set up such countries.

And of course I disapprove of bullying, especially the kind of misperceived stuff referred to above.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It started with this article in Time magazine, reporting that the American university group, Intervarsity (probably best known through their publishing arm, Intervarsity Press) were going to fire any staff who support same sex marriage (SSM).

Intervarsity then responded saying that the article in Time was inaccurate.

Yet it rumbles on with further comment with Christianity Today, amongst a number of other news outlets repeating the assertions made in the Time article.

I, for one, am a little confused. Are Intervarsity planning to fire those who support SSM or not?

If they are, how could that possibly be legal? I'm not particularly au fait with American law, but it seems to fall foul of any possible anti-discrimination law imaginable.

The very prospect makes me - human sexuality has never been a core part of any creed, catechism or confession of faith. The notion that it is becoming the de facto shibboleth of an imagined orthodoxy sends shudders down my spine.

It's worse than that, IMO: they're asking staffers who disagree with their stance to voluntarily come forward and initiate a process of 'involuntary termination,' their words, with a single month's salary provision for departure.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Like racial difference, left-handedness has no moral implications about what people do. So no proper reason to question it.

Things DONE, or desired to be done, have moral implications; if you choose to think you live in a Richard Dawkins world, where there is no good and evil, right or wrong, and we all dance to the tune of uncaring DNA, fine. (Source; Dawkins' book "River out of Eden", and no subsequent writing by him has anywhere near disproved what he said there)

If instead you think you live in a purposeful creation, that makes a difference.

Do you believe God 'makes' people gay??

I'm personally not one of the people who believes in a 'Christian country' where Christian values are legally imposed on non-Christians; and I deeply regret that some Christians in the past disobeyed the actual NT teaching to set up such countries.

And of course I disapprove of bullying, especially the kind of misperceived stuff referred to above.

Steve, they're firing people irrespective of what they do, merely for believing that SSM is permissible and that whether they're gay or not. If Christians want to go down that route, they should also permit the state to look into their beliefs and sack them if they merely disagree with, say, anti-discrimination provisions, or issuing marriage licenses to gay couples... even though they actually do it. It's absolutely hateful.

[ 12. October 2016, 11:35: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@Steve: I'm not a host and will possibly receive for criticism for saying this, but ...

YET AGAIN you have dragged the "Christian country" line of thinking into a thread which has nothing to do with it, whatever American law may or may not say.

Please STOP DOING IT.

[ 12. October 2016, 12:11: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

quote:
And of course I disapprove of bullying, especially the kind of misperceived stuff referred to above.

Sacking someone for holding an opinion is as close to bullying as makes no odds, in my book.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I read on this website last night that the reason for the firings could be that the organisation needs to ensure a consistent line from all their staff in case it's taken to court for discrimination.

I don't know if this is so, but I can see that a controversial topic like this is more likely to bring legal challenges than polite disagreement on the more 'boring' biblical issues that people don't think have much bearing on their lives.

From another perspective, this turn of events proves the danger that exists when more moderate Christians leave this sort of work to organisations whose leadership is theologically conservative, or whose financial support comes largely from a more conservative constituency.

There's not much of a practical solution, though, because the resources and manpower are harder to come by at the other end of the spectrum. It may be a case of waiting for demographic changes to take effect within the organisation and its sponsors.

[ 12. October 2016, 12:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think the "support" issue could be important. Many years ago I knew an American family who were members of an interdenominational missionary society. The "issue of the day" was over the charismatic movement, and the society was under intense pressure from some churches to insert an anti-charismatic line into their Statement of Faith. To its credit, its Council refused to do so - and many churches withdrew their backing.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm personally not one of the people who believes in a 'Christian country' where Christian values are legally imposed on non-Christians; and I deeply regret that some Christians in the past disobeyed the actual NT teaching to set up such countries.

WTF does this have to do with this conversation? NOTHING. This is about a private organization and its internal decisions. It has fuck-all to do with Christian countries. This paragraph has no place at all on this thread and is as welcome as a Christian turd in a state-sponsored punchbowl.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As I said (albeit less pungently) a few posts above!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Like racial difference, left-handedness has no moral implications about what people do. So no proper reason to question it.

Things DONE, or desired to be done, have moral implications; . . .

Right. So being left-handed is okay, but using your left hand as your primary hand has "moral implications". It should be noted that there are several Biblical passages indicating that the right hand is the "good" hand while the left hand is "sinister".

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Racial discrimination is about what people ARE and have not chosen - which in turn has no moral implications any more than the differences in the genes between fair-haired (before age turned it white) blue-eyed me, and my dark-haired brown-eyed brother.

SSM - and acts of 'gay sex' generally - is about something people choose to do; and what people choose to do is necessarily subject to moral question, and possible disagreement in a plural society. Demanding agreement, and enforcing that agreement by law - on either side - is intolerance....

This is an irrelevant distinction as far as most anti-discrimination laws are concerned. By your argument religious discrimination is perfectly okay because religion is something you "choose to do". Or discriminating against inter-racial couples (who didn't choose their race, but did choose to marry someone of a different race).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Host Hat On

In view of previous decisions and warnings, I'm referring Steve Langton's post to Admin for further consideration. Meanwhile, the "Christian Country" tangent is ruled out of bounds for follow-up comment.

Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Like racial difference, left-handedness has no moral implications about what people do. So no proper reason to question it.

What moral implications does homosexuality have?

Do animals make moral choices?

quote:

Do you believe God 'makes' people gay??

If God exists then s/he has created a reality that include homosexualitys. And a damn lot of it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Steve Langton,

You have been slipping the "Christian State" line into several threads where it isn't relevant. And, you have already received warnings about this.

Therefore, we're giving you some shore leave. I strongly suggest that when you're back in a couple of weeks you find other subjects to talk about. I'll reinstate your posting privileges at the end of October.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There's a rather important line here. Christians should not be objecting to SSM being available in the state for those who choose to believe it is right - in the same way that Christians should not object to the state allowing the practice of all kinds of religious and philosophical beliefs in a plural society.

On the other hand, if Christian teaching precludes SSM for Christians, then a Christian organisation might well feel unable to support/employ those who do believe SSM for Christians is OK. And so far, I've yet to be anywhere near convinced that it is possible to square SSM with either Jesus' teaching or the rest of the NT - not to mention the OT.

You can't if you have a flat, legalistic, cookbook, trajectory-less, frozen in aspic approach to the NT as I had until recently.

[ 12. October 2016, 22:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What moral implications does homosexuality have?

One could construct a society with a dramatic shortage of people, where there was a moral imperative for reproductive-age people to get busy making more people, rather than indulging in selfish non-child-producing pleasure.

We don't live in those conditions.

Of course, if you take a "traditional" reading of the Bible, then you think that God tells you not to have gay sex, and you define anything against God's will as immoral.

There is, of course, disagreement about what God actually says.

(References to animals doesn't help with morality. Animals routinely do things that we would consider immoral if done by humans. They are, perhaps, useful if someone is attempting to describe homosexual behaviour as unnatural.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What moral implications does homosexuality have?
One could construct a society with a dramatic shortage of people, where there was a moral imperative for reproductive-age people to get busy making more people, rather than indulging in selfish non-child-producing pleasure.

I'm not sure that it would still be a moral imperative even then.

<whispers> Gay people have been doing that for millennia./<whispers>

quote:

Of course, if you take a "traditional" reading of the Bible, then you think that God tells you not to have gay sex, and you define anything against God's will as immoral.

Again, lots of things God "says" in the Bible that contemporary Christians say is immoral.

quote:

(References to animals doesn't help with morality. Animals routinely do things that we would consider immoral if done by humans. They are, perhaps, useful if someone is attempting to describe homosexual behaviour as unnatural.)

Kinda implied in the "actions" rubbish.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

In the meantime, the Anglican Abp of Sydney, ++Glenn, has refused to re-license Dr Keith Mascord in the absence of an undertaking by Dr Mascord not to preach in favour of SSM, or to avoid the topic completely. Nearly 60 prominent Anglicans from around Aust have written in protest at this decision.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

Link to what Gee D's talking about.

I can understand (although I disagree with) people firing someone for active homosexual conduct. If they think such conduct is sinful, and think the position requires an avoidance of sin, it's reasonable. But this seems to be "You must agree with me on what things are sinful, whether you do them or not", which is rather ridiculous.

[ 13. October 2016, 03:13: Message edited by: St Deird ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The ridiculous part of this is the idea that an organisation could dictate to their workers about what are acceptable thoughts on how to arrange society.

It seems to me that there is an absolutely decent argument for state-sanctioned SSM which ought to be supported even by conservatives who don't agree with the concept. On that basis it seems rather idiotic to therefore claim that workers in this conservative group ought to think the same way about this issue.

But then I've long thought that the IVP and UCCF are pretty idiotic organisations - at least in the UK they often seem to want to be the mouthpiece of a fairly diverse group of Christians who may not necessarily agree with their line on things. In the case of UCCF, I think there is almost nobody who accepts all the things they've said on behalf of Evangelical students in this country over the last years, and yet they still keep pumping this stuff out as if the issue is completely settled.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
But this seems to be "You must agree with me on what things are sinful, whether you do them or not", which is rather ridiculous.

If a priest is preaching heresy, then surely his bishop must take action against him? Isn't that rather what bishops are for - they're not just there because we have some deep-seated need for a bunch of people in pointy hats.

I don't think the archbishop is right either (either about SSM, or that having a view in favour of SSM is so far outside the bounds of what Sydney regards as the orthodox faith to require this kind of sanction), but it's not ridiculous for him to require the priests within his archdiocese to preach the orthodox faith, rather than making things up by themselves.

Boy - there's an argument I didn't expect to make in defense of Sydney...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

AFAIK, there's no Aust-wide position on SSM. Indeed the Primate is in favour of public debate on the topic, and my interpretation of that is that he's in favour of SSM. However, the bishops (I think all, not just diocesans) have resolved that being in a same-sex relationship is incompatible with priesthood. That's not just a Moore College position.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0