THE THEOLOGICAL ENGINEER
InterVarsity's LGBTQ Policy
Of Threatening Politics and Precautionary Policies
By Jeff Laird
Single Page/Printer Friendly
Time recently published a story about college outreach ministry InterVarsity's approach to employees with conflicting views on same-sex marriage. Several years ago, InterVarsity concluded a four-year internal doctrinal review with the conclusion that homosexual behavior was clearly condemned in the Scriptures, and same-sex marriage could not be supported. InterVarsity circulated their findings to their employees and asked for those who disagreed to voluntarily step forward, triggering a two-week countdown to ending that person's employment.
Predictably, this was met with open disdain from LGBTQ activists. Comments have run the gamut from decrying "narrow theology," to accusations of hate, to predictions that the organization will be banned from college campuses. On the other hand, some evangelical leaders have praised InterVarsity for taking a principled, formal stand.
According to some critics, Christians who support the actions of InterVarsity but disliked the treatment of Brendan Eich, the former Mozilla executive, are being hypocritical. Eich was compelled to step down when activists found out he'd donated money in support of California's proposition 8, intended to block same-sex marriage. Eich's case is one Blogos has tackled before, in an article by Jim Parker. A similar case involving Frank Turek was examined by Robin Schumacher.
First, it's important to consider the differences between what happened to Brendan Eich and what's occurring within InterVarsity. Eich's actions were entirely outside of and unrelated to his employment. Nothing he said or did conflicted in any way with some aspect of Mozilla's business plan, mission statement, or other goals. There was no review, no process, and no formal statement to compare. Eich was ultimately forced to resign under the pressure of mob justice, over something unrelated to his actual employment.
Some will argue about the need to split hairs over "voluntary" admission of disagreement, leading to termination. And, there are reasonable questions about what that might mean in the future. Unfortunately, InterVarsity has responded with a statement that they have no policy on employee views, which only muddies the waters of what is really happening.
For the sake of simplicity, though, consider the question in high-stakes, black-and-white terms. What if, when all is said and done, InterVarsity is actively firing employees who disagree with their stance on this issue? Is this morally equivalent to other companies ousting employees over these types of disagreements, to the extent Christians should be supporting it?
Yes, and no.
The truth is that InterVarsity's actions are not only profoundly different from what happened to Eich and Turek, they are a natural consequence of the LGBTQ's own aggressive social bullying.
As the differences already mentioned show, there is an enormous gulf between requiring employees to hold views consistent with the core, necessary aspects of a business, versus views unrelated to the nature or purpose of the business. A McDonald's employee probably ought not to be fired for saying he prefers Pepsi to Coke, or that he feels minimum wage jobs are unfairly compensated. Saying those things at work, or to customers, becomes a gray area. If he tells the manager he hates people, believes beef is murder, thinks that fast food is killing Americans, and has a moral problem with washing his hands, he has to expect to be let go.
At some point, personal beliefs can conflict with the mission of the employer. In the case of InterVarsity, this is not a secondary or tertiary issue. This is a subject directly related to how the Bible is interpreted, applied, and respected. In other words, criticisms of "narrow theology" are laughably immature. Former employee Bianca Louie is cited as saying, "I don't know how InterVarsity can do ministry on campus with integrity anymore." I don't think she understands half the words in that sentence. By definition, religions are defined (separated) via their distinct views on certain moral or spiritual topics.
It's asinine to suggest that an employer — morally or legally — is obligated to pay someone who overtly opposes their own interests. It's sillier to ask a religious organization to retain people who oppose their religious beliefs. Holding that line would be an example of integrity, wouldn't it?
From that standpoint, there is nothing immoral about an organization terminating an employee whose views conflict with their raison d'Ítre. How many PETA activists would argue for the right of one of their staffers to raise veal in his off-time, or to eat lamb chops at his cubicle?
Continue to Page Two
comments powered by Disqus