View
Must Say No
Joshua Steely on When Christians Can't Compromise
Compromise is often a good thing. Relationships involve a lot of compromise, and it is especially justified when dealing with matters that are not of great significance. In such cases, compromise is generally a good thing.
But when it comes to important, foundational matters, such as those concerning doctrine and morals, compromise is not so good. In fact, it can be downright bad. If you compromise on something when you shouldn't, you yourself become compromised. You will then have to compromise more and more, and in the end you'll find that you've been compromised all the way over to the other side (or very nearly).
This happens, in part, because a compromise involves some degree of moral equivocation. When you compromise on something, you implicitly concede that the other position is justified, at least to some extent. That's why we compromise on things that are inconsequential, or unclear, or where both sides have a valid claim, and why we don't compromise on murder or theft. If we started compromising on the latter, our whole justice system would become compromised.
A Pragmatic Compromise
Observations in this area are relevant to the various efforts being made by churches, denominations, and other Christian bodies to compromise with the sexual revolution. One contemporary example is the "Fairness for All" (FFA) compromise being promoted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). In this case, a compromise is being pursued that is, I think, shortsighted at best.
The FFA is a motion supporting the inclusion of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected categories in anti-discrimination law as long as compliance carve-outs are made to protect religious liberty. The problem with the NAE and CCCU endorsing the motion is not that they are deliberately acquiescing to the sexual revolution, but that the form of resistance they are advocating with this document effectively amounts to such. As reported by J. C. Derrick in World magazine online ("Boards Back SOGI Compromise," December 12, 2018), one of the supporters of the motion, Shirley Mullen, described the goal in these terms: "As Christian higher educators, we are increasingly persuaded that the most viable political strategy is for comprehensive religious freedom protections to be combined with explicit support for basic human rights for members of the LGBT community."
Of course, that way of putting it doesn't quite capture the reality. Basic human rights for all people are derived on the basis of being human, not on the basis of membership in some identity group or other. The question is not whether everyone should enjoy basic human rights, but whether special rights and protections should be granted to people on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Nevertheless, the NAE and CCCU, well-meaning Evangelicals with the goal of securing religious liberty, are proposing to accept the codification of gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes in non-discrimination law as long as religious exemptions from compliance with such laws are allowed. They are not altering their theological beliefs about human nature and sexuality; they are merely making a pragmatic, not a theological, compromise.
Compromised Witness
But such a pragmatic compromise would compromise the Church's witness to the truth in a confused culture. By supporting the addition of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" (SOGI) to anti-discrimination laws, Christians would be implying that these are legitimate categories, that they are valid markers of human identity in the same way that race and sex are. But that is precisely what orthodox Christianity disputes, and it is precisely why we refuse to uphold such categories in our churches, schools, and other organizations.
In other words, orthodox Christianity denies the charge of bigotry in, for example, the refusal of a Christian school to hire homosexual teachers. Such a refusal is not bigotry because "sexual orientation" is not a valid category of human identity. It is a moral category, not an anthropological category. Refusing to hire someone based on SOGI is not analogous to refusing to hire someone based on race or sex; it is analogous to refusing to hire someone based on some other kind of sexually immoral behavior, such as polygamy or promiscuity.
Joshua Steely is the Lead Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Grand Forks, North Dakota. His articles have appeared in Evangelical Review of Theology, Touchstone, The Christian Post, and other publications.
A Journal of Mere Christianity—Delivered to Your Door
- Essays on theology, culture, and the Church
- Contributors from across the Christian traditions
Six print issues (one year) of Touchstone, plus full online access and PDF downloads for only $39.95.
Get a one-year full-access subscription to the Touchstone online archives for only $19.95.
bulk subscriptions
Order Touchstone subscriptions in bulk and save $10 per sub! Each subscription includes 6 issues of Touchstone plus full online access to touchstonemag.com—including archives, videos, and pdf downloads of recent issues for only $29.95 each! Great for churches or study groups.
Transactions will be processed on a secure server.
more on culture from the online archives
34.1—January/February 2021
What the World Needs Now It Hardly Knows by Anthony Esolen
34.1—January/February 2021
Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher by Hans Boersma
30.6—Nov/Dec 2017
Christ, Individualism & the Meaning of Cultural Diversity by Anthony Esolen
more from the online archives
29.2—March/April 2016
The History of Family Strength in America May Reveal Good News by Allan C. Carlson
32.1—January/February 2019
The Diabolical Failure of Leaders in the Present Crises by James M. Kushiner
29.5—Sept/Oct 2016
on the Loss of True Community & Rising Political Desperation by Karl D. Stephan
calling all readers
Please Donate
"There are magazines worth reading but few worth saving . . . Touchstone is just such a magazine."
—Alice von Hildebrand
"Here we do not concede one square millimeter of territory to falsehood, folly, contemporary sentimentality, or fashion. We speak the truth, and let God be our judge. . . . Touchstone is the one committedly Christian conservative journal."
—Anthony Esolen, Touchstone senior editor
