by Many religious commentators on the CLS v. Martinez case are upset by the majority’s rejection of the argument that discrimination based on conduct differs from discrimination based on status. Some religious conservatives are keen to promote such a distinction because it would help immunize discrimination based on sexual conduct from strict constitutional scrutiny. For example, a church that refuses to hire people who practice a homosexual lifestyle – in other words, homosexuals who have sex – would not necessarily be discriminating against homosexuals as a class of people, particularly if the church is willing to hire people with homosexual inclinations who remain celibate.
The notion that a person’s internal inclinations and external actions can so easily be separated grates hard against the identity politics that underwrite our culture war debates. At some point, of course, nearly everyone agrees that certain inclinations must be stifled – such as the pedophile’s urge to sexualize children. But beyond extreme cases in which grave harm is inflicted on unwilling third parties, our majority culture’s highest possible value is the freedom of each individual to realize and actualize his or her own inclinations (or in law-review friendly language, to increase social welfare through the maximization of individual utilities and the minimization of externalities).
In a liberal, pluralistic democracy, it seems hard to suggest any other meaningful rule. If “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are “inalienable rights,” and if the core purpose of our polis is the preservation of those rights, conduct-status distinctions must be anathema. A person is not free to pursue his libertarian happiness if he is restrained from acting in ways that would satisfy his inclinations without harming innocent third parties. When restraints must be imposed to protect the freedoms of others, these are cases of externality costs, not cases in which the utility of an inclination can be separated from the utility of the conduct produced by the inclination. Because the proper balance of utilities cannot be determined exhaustively ex ante, the best approach is to agree on a broad social contract framework for resolving disputes. Or so the neo-Rawlsian story goes.
From the viewpoint of Christian theology, this sort of libertarian theory is idolatry. The true telos of life is not to actualize one’s self by maximizing one’s own utilities. Rather, the goal of the good life is to become united with Christ. This involves the loss of one’s old self, with its inexorable inclinations toward sin and violence, and in its place the resurrection of a “new creation,” in joyful fellowship with God, with God’s creation, and with the community of God’s people, sharing in some mysterious measure in the perichoretic fellowship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The libertarian self dies so that the self created by God for happy communion may live.
This is why the Bible draws no artificial distinction between what we do with our bodies and the state of our inner selves. In fact, much of the New Testament’s epistolary literature deals with the Gnostic heresy of that the body is an illusion. The early Gnostic sects tended towards either harsh asceticism or sexual license, because, for them, only the “spiritual” or inner plane really mattered. The Bible, and particularly St. Paul, will have none of this kind of dualism:
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Cor. 6:12-20).
For Christian anthropology, the inner and outer “self” is an integrated whole. There can be no sharp distinction between “inclinations” and “conduct.” A Constitutional standard that would distinguish “conduct” and “status” is foreign to a Christian view of the human person.
In this light, it seems surprising that so many of the Christian lawyers and organizations involved in the CLS v. Martinez case vigorously argued for a conduct / status distinction. I’m tempted to mitigate my surprise with a cynical nod towards the expediencies of litigation. If you want to “win” in the Supreme Court, a robust Pauline anthropology won’t do. The Court might, however, understand a legalistic approach to “religion,” under which communities are constructed through adherence to somewhat arbitrary rules.
Perhaps this argument is plausible: “religion” essentially is about external compliance, not internal transformation and the resurrection of the whole person. That is at least one possible sociological definition of “religion,” and it might be important to carve out spaces for people whose life plans intersect with communities that impose such rules.
Another potentially robust, if maybe still a bit cynical, explanation is that the Christian groups advocating an inclination / conduct distinction don’t want to be seen as illiberal. If the CLS excludes people engaged in homosexual activity from membership, it is not because the CLS is “anti-gay”; it is only a certain kind of conduct, not the person’s inner self, which is in question. But all this is sophistry. Indeed, there were “teachers of the law” in Jesus’ day who took a similar view. According to Jesus, these lawyers were no better than “whitewashed tombs” (Matt. 23:27).
The truth is that all Christian organizations that exclude people from membership based on homosexual behavior are “anti-gay,” insofar as “gay” is a definition of identity linked to a person’s deep inclinations. For that matter, Christian organizations can and often should be “anti-heterosexual,” “anti-business,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-family,” “anti-life,” and so on, insofar as any of these categories of desire take the place of God. Just ask the one after whom the Christian faith is named: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26).
Of course, they way I’ve framed the question is problematic, because the posture of a Christian community shouldn’t be “anti” anything unless we first understand that “love,” particularly the love of God revealed in Christ, is everything. We are all about becoming united with God in love through Christ, in anticipation of the day when “God may be all in all.” (1 Cor. 15:28). It is love that excludes certain inclinations, desires, and conduct. Love compels us to order our desires and our conduct so that God’s community of shalom can be established. Love burns away all that which tends to dissolve this community: misplaced desire and misdirected conduct, all of a piece.
Christian communities are first and above all pro-love. “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and love, we recognize, is always a gift, freely given, freely received. God is the giver and we only respond. We love God only because He first loved us, and not because we deserve it. Indeed, until we are finally united with Him, our inclinations and desires continually tend towards selfishness and idolatry. We resonate with St. Paul’s agonized cry: “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24). We agree with Paul that we are rescued only in Jesus Christ.
It is because Christian communities are pro-love and pro-gift that we should always welcome gay people — along with all other strangers, all other aliens, all other outcasts — to fellowship with us. Yet, it is also because we are pro-love and pro-gift that Christian communities must establish standards of conduct that discipline the life of the community such that desire is continually directed towards the highest good, which is God and the peace God establishes.
Christians have historically understood sexuality in the context of a sacramental marriage commitment between one man and one woman, with the attendant possibility of new life in childbirth, because this reflects, we believe, something about the difference-and-coinherence of the persons of the Triune God Himself, as well as something about the gift of creation arising from the perichoretic joy known by God and instantiated in creation into that which is other than God. We understand sexual intercourse outside of the context of sacramental marriage to represent not only the violation of some external rule, but also a grave breach in the internal fibers of the community God is building. It is not out of animus for the person who is having sex outside of sacramental marriage that we might restrict the person’s role in the community. It is out of love, both for the person and for the community, and out of a great and overwhelming desire to see God’s peace realized for all.
The proposal that inclinations and conduct can be viewed in isolation, then, is exposed as empty and loveless. It reflects the sort of anthropological dualism towards which our neo-gnostic libertarian culture gravitates. This compromise should be resisted by the community called by the name of the Triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. Let us instead develop the courage to become an alternative community even when our distinctive witness forecloses access to the benefits of the libertarian secular state. We may, as good citizens in the earthly city, lawfully petition for the benefits of that citizenship, but let us do so without resort to legal theories rooted in a vision of the human person and the human community that falls so far short of what we believe is true and good.
Great post, but I wonder, under your framework, how CLS should articulate its membership policy to the public? And would it remedy the problem if CLS (or other Christian groups) never mentioned “status” or “conduct” and focused exclusively on “belief?” E.g., “CLS doesn’t care about your inclinations or conduct, but members need to affirm the immorality of homosexual conduct.” Would that at least capture the CLS view that a rejection of homosexual conduct should be part of the unified Christian existence toward which CLS members should be striving, yearning, etc?
My issue is with the argument to the Court that the exclusion is not based on sexual orientation, but rather was made “on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong” (Ginsburg Opinion, p. 23) — as if the inner person and the outer person can be so easily separated. I’m afraid that this is a lawyerly compromise of a properly Christian view of the person in order to fit within the secular state’s rules.
It bothers me even more in this case because the Christian group was the plaintiff, suing to obtain recognition from the state. Yes, that move can be seen as defensive because the school had already excluded the group. But let’s be honest — as much as this was about one group in one school, it was also an effort to obtain a precedent that could be more broadly applied in the culture wars, or else it wouldn’t have been taken to the Supreme Court. The strategy of Christian impact litigation, I think, is a mistaken one. If nothing else, I hope that somehow this decision causes Christian advocacy groups to reflect more deeply on exactly what is being gained and what is being lost by this sort of legal battle.
I’d rather that Christian groups simply let their “yes be yes” and then work within the limitations of exile if necessary. I think we ought to be able to articulate a positive vision of personhood and sexuality cast in terms of what we believe is “right” and “the good” rather than in terms of legalistic distinctions between belief and conduct. If there’s going to be a just legal solution to this kind of problem, I think it will have to come in the form of the sorts of exemptions that already exist for religious organizations under the Civil Rights Act. But if the Court won’t agree that differing views on sexuality can produce legitimate religious exemptions, then I think the Church will have to learn to live with that tension for a while rather than parsing personhood in this way.
But there are plenty of times when my conduct does not reflect my inner beliefs. As Paul said in Romans, “For what I do is not the good I want to do. No, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing.” How does this fit with your criticism? (I’m not focused on whether homosexuality is well suited for a status/conduct distinction; I’m talking about your broader criticism of the purported separation of the inner and outer person.)
I don’t think Paul is reflecting a difference between outer conduct and inner “beliefs” — or that this would be a proper reading of Augustine, either. A “belief” is a mental assent to a proposition. What Paul and Augustine are talking about is “desires.” Desires can and do involve beliefs — sometimes beliefs foster desires, and sometimes desires foster beliefs. But a desire is something more fundamental than mental assent to a proposition. Desires are rooted in ontology — in what we are as human beings.
I think what Paul and Augustine speak of is the conflict of desires. Everyone has some desire to to good — this is part of the image of God in everyone. And yet, everyone has conflicting desires that are directed away from the good — this is part of the sinful nature. Augustine illustrates this in the Confessions with the famous story of the stolen pears.
The conflict we experience here is an ontological conflict, not just a mental one (though, as mentioned, it also produces conflicts at the level of beliefs). Our very nature as human beings is conflicted to the core. This conflict is only resolved through “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17), which as Paul demonstrates in Romans, only comes through becoming united with Christ. When you experience the sort of conflict you describe — as we all do all the time — it is because the “good work” Christ began in us is not yet completed (Phil. 1:6). As Christians, we are already “new creation,” but at the same time that new creation is not yet fully realized.
So, it seems to me that it really won’t do to say “I’m acting this way, but I really believe that way.” It seems to me that the Pauline / Augustinian view is that you act one way because you are that way in your old nature, and you resist that sort of action because you are another way in your new nature. Or, maybe another way to put it is that your actions show what you really desire and what you really believe.
David says, “For Christian anthropology, the inner and outer ‘self’ is an integrated whole. There can be no sharp distinction between ‘inclinations’ and ‘conduct.’” The Christian ideal is an integrated whole, but much of the Christian life is working in that direction. It seems to me that the CLS rules merely required that its leaders be working on it.
A Pauline and Augustinian anthropology includes the notion that our inclinations are likely to be at war with our will. In the first section you quote from Paul, he is arguing that action should conform to Christian principles, not that the Christian should submit to his or her inclinations and thereby avoid the tension between his or her inclinations and actions. In the very section you quote, Paul says, “Flee from sexual immorality [an inclination!].”
Christianity is anti-dualistic, but when Paul laments that he does the things he does not want to do and cries out (as you quote) “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24) he is lamenting the dualism that we all experience. There are two ways to resist the dualism. One is to give in to the wrongful inclinations. Another is to seek the transforming power of Christ through prayer, fasting, and other spiritual disciplines. Paul seems to have chosen the latter. He did not ignore that his inclinations tempted him to take actions that were wrong. Most Christians experience progression, but most Christians (including Paul), also continue to have some areas of their lives that they don’t completely control.
Paul agreed that internal transformation (not obedience to rules) is the key to the Christian life, but he still required churches to enforce the rules of the Christian life. Paul had the church at Corinth dismiss a member who was living in adultery. I Cor. 5. Paul also required the church to readmit him when he had repented. II Cor. 2:5-11. The acceptance did not turn on whether the man was no longer attracted to the woman he slept with. Paul did not object to people who were tempted toward adultery; he objected to people who committed adultery. CLS adopted a similar practice.
Bob, I don’t object to CLS’ requirements concerning sexual conduct at all. They seem to me perfectly appropriate requirements for a Christian community.
What I’m critiquing is the argument made before the Court about the meaning of those requirements. By radically separating intentions, desires, and conduct, that argument tends to undermine Christian anthropology. It strikes me as a perfect example of why this sort of impact litigation is almost always misguided. To win Ceasar’s blessing, you have to compromise with Ceasar. I just don’t think the game of trying to shoehorn Christian sexuality into an individualistic civil rights framework is worth the candle.
Dave,
This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I have two comments. First, when you write that under the logic of mainstream liberal thought and identity politics, “[t]he truth is that all Christian organizations that exclude people from membership based on homosexual behavior are ‘anti-gay,’ insofar as ‘gay’ is a definition of identity linked to a person’s deep inclinations,” I would change “deep” to “deepest.” My sense is that the Catholic priest Henri Nouwen had “deep inclinations” toward being gay that were very a much part of his identity but honored his deepest inclinations instead. This is one reason that the status and conduct distinction matters on some level for people of faith who draw boundaries around sexual ethics: it points toward exemplars who have sacrificed deep inclinations at great cost.
Second, I wonder whether you are too aspirational in your claim that “[i]t is not out of animus for the person who is having sex outside of sacramental marriage that we might restrict the person’s role in the community. It is out of love, both for the person and for the community, and out of a great and overwhelming desire to see God’s peace realized for all.” Evangelical Protestantism has a sexual ethics in disarray because many Protestants embrace this “tough love” stance on homosexuality but are far less clear about equally challenging questions of divorce and remarriage. I’ve long wondered whether some level of animus underlies this disparate approach–most evangelical Protestants don’t have many close openly gay friends, but many have friends and family members who have struggled through divorce and remarriage.
Thanks to John Inazu for two interesting points. Last year, I preached a sermon on homosexuality, acknowledging that Christians have not loved their gay and lesbian neighbors as Christ has called us to do. I encouraged hearers to be the first in their neighborhood to have their gay and lesbian neighbors over for dinner. I continued:
“I fear that we tend to condemn homosexual sin more strongly than heterosexual sin because most of us are tempted toward heterosexual sin. We tend to see a plank in our neighbor’s eye and a splinter in our own. Many of us have heterosexual friends, or relatives, or children who live together without being married, and we treat their sins more lightly than sin that seems more foreign. I suspect that most react more negatively toward a movie like “Brokeback Mountain” that treats homosexual sex positively than movies that treat heterosexual extramarital sex positively, like almost every other movie out there–the James Bond movies, the Boerne movies, or the innumerable chick flicks that I so much enjoy [my tone of voice revealed that I don't really like those chick flicks].
“We need to think Christianly about all of our culture. Indeed, in my view there are many sins that are much greater problems than homosexuality, including abortion, child neglect, divorce, and our neglect of the homelessness and poverty of the inner city. Promiscuous heterosexual men are a much bigger problem for American culture, as well as the American church, than homosexuality.”
John and Bob — great points from both of you. John, when I used the “we” there, it was more like the “royal we” of all of Christianity in its ideals. I agree with both of you that we evangelicals sometimes seem more strident about homosexuality for some of the inappropriate reasons you mention. Bob, I’d add to your mention of “promiscuous” heterosexual men the plague of pornography. So many good men and good marriages in our churches have been destroyed by this evil industry.
The sorts of things we’re raising here are among the main reasons why I’ve come to think that the legal battle to prevent gay marriage, to the extent it is underwritten by evangelicals, is largely misguided. Until we establish Christian communities that can witness robustly to what healthy marriage and sexuality are supposed to look like, I don’t think we’ve earned the ability to establish rules for people outside the Church.
I’d never say the Church should withdraw from the public square, but I’m convinced that right now is a time for evangelicals (and by this I really mean anyone committed to the Evangel of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) to step back, reflect, repent, and in many ways start fresh.