On the Pursuit of Human Autonomy
Written by Niel Nielson on November 2nd, 2009The U. S. Senate last week passed a $680 billion defense policy bill, to which was attached the “Matthew Shepard Act,” which adds physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity to the list of federal hate crimes.
The significance of the law’s passage lies not primarily in its protection against physical attacks–we rightly deplore such acts of violence against people–but in its recognition of sexual orientation and gender identity as constituting specially protected classes of persons. Such application of antidiscrimination law now opens the door for federal protection of these classes of persons in contexts such as employment (the Employment Non-discrimination Act), military service (repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military), and the definition of marriage (repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act).
One has only to observe the progression of such legislation in countries like Australia and the United Kingdom to see where we may be headed in the United States. In those countries, antidiscrimination legislation has significantly eroded protections of religious liberty and individual conscience, and well serves the increasing intolerance of any view which stands in the way of the agenda of homosexual activists and advocates. For example, under the new Equality Act in the U.K., it is now illegal for a church preferentially to hire professing and faithful Christians except for worship leaders or full-time teachers or preachers.
In a recent article in First Things, George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, makes clear the central tenet of the so-called sexual revolution from its very beginning: “limits on human sexual autonomy will not be tolerated.” Antidiscrimination law provides the social/political instrument for bringing down any scruple or hindrance to the full realization of that autonomy, especially if the scruple is grounded in a religious view that affirms that the individual person is not in fact autonomous. Thus those who believe in a God who has created and who rules all there is, and who has spoken his Word and his will for his creatures, are, along with their institutions and organizations, especially to be targeted in antidiscrimination legislation.
Cardinal Pell goes on to point out the self-defeating nature of the pursuit of unfettered human autonomy:
There are already abundant indications of human autonomy being diminished as sexual freedom becomes a driver of consumption and an organizing principle of economic life, with the reemergence of slavery in Europe and Asia, the booming exploitation of pornography and prostitution, and the commercialization of surrogacy, egg donation, and the production and destruction of human embryos and human stem-cell lines.
…Limits are an inescapable part of the human condition. The only questions are whether they will be the limits of servitude or the limits of freedom and whether self-love or love of others will predominate.
As troubling as the trends of antidiscrimination legislation are for Christians and Christian institutions, the tragic reality of where the pursuit of human autonomy takes individuals and cultures means that the message of the gospel – of God’s saving grace for sinners helpless and hopeless in their sin – is and will remain the best answer and our principal focus. Certainly we need to confront the intolerance and work vigorously to oppose the violation of our precious freedoms. We must persuasively argue against the perverse logic of this antidiscrimination trend and utilize all appropriate means to defend our institutional missions.
But let us most basically and most energetically be proclaimers of the gospel, offering the hope of escape from the horrific destiny of rebellion into the gracious rule of our loving and sovereign God. God may or may not choose to preserve Covenant College in these next decades; of course I pray that he does. But he will certainly draw all his own to himself, and he will bring his people safely home.
So you’re opposed to a law that makes attacking people on the basis of their sexual orientation a hate crime? Seriously?
Is that because you think that people who beat up gay people are justified in doing so?
“Limits are an inescapable part of the human condition. The only questions are whether (…) self-love or love of others will predominate.”
I think I fully agree with that quote. I just happen to think that it’s the attackers who need to be reminded of that, not their victims.
And in case my previous comment is moderated out because it seems I’m being rude, let me be clear: I am not accusing you of having a secret desire to go around beating up gay people.
I am accusing you of letting your political identity get the better of your Christian principles. In all honesty, when deciding to condemn this piece of legislation, what guided you? Your Christian principles? Or the political identity you’ve adopted because you think it best represents your Christian principles?
And, to pick an example I think we can both agree on, which of those two guided the Good Samaritan?
please read the following out loud:
i believe in discriminating against gay people in order to not be discriminated against.
now ponder.
So you are in favor of discriminating against gays passively? By not hiring them, or allowing them to serve our country if they so desire? (and by the way they have already been protecting you, just not openly.) I personally think ANY kind of discrimination – violent or otherwise- is unacceptable.
I think this is a fear-based argument. How do you get past the fact that you are denying someone else their freedom (not only freedom as a citizen of the United States, but freedom from being brutally attacked) in order to protect your conspiracy theorist notion that yours may be stolen? and to follow this idea out to its logical extent, if you base your argument against antidiscrimination on your preconceived notions of what antidiscrimination means for you personally, what’s to stop Covenant College from becoming a police state? Now, that may sound absurd, but if there is no line to end what you think God thinks about fairness and brotherly love, your argument’s abutting fascism.
In response to Sylvia, this is not an issue of political identity, but a rejection of a state-approved revolt against God’s word (see Romans 1:26-27)in giving hate crime protection to practices which are antithetical to scripture. George Hegel said that the state is “god walking on earth.” He is wrong, and unless we pay attention to God’s law, we will all reap the whirlwind.
Eric, this law is not “giving hate crime protection to practices which are antithetical to scripture”. It is giving protection to *people* who have hate crimes committed against them.
And if you think that giving state protection to people who commit acts “antithetical to scripture” is wrong, I would humbly submit that neither you nor I are innocent of acts that are antithetical to scripture. Cast the first stone, go ahead.
If you want scriptural justification for your stance on this law, I’m sure you can find it. But the mental gymnastics involved in doing so should be a warning sign to you.
Like I said, being guided by the Good Samaritan principle would probably be better than allowing people to feed your fears about what could possibly happen to your country, your community or your school if you start wantonly extending basic Christian compassion to the victims of brutal crimes.
I question the very idea of a hate crime. Mugging someone is already an act of hate. Whether a particular mugging is particularly heinous is up to a jury to decide. For our society to say that certain reasons are automatically more heinous than sets a questionable legal precedent. If I mug someone just for the heck of it, because I want to assert my freedom to act, is that somehow less heinous than my mugging someone because I don’t like the group they are part of?
erata:
I hit the button too soon.
“. . .more heinous that others sets. . .”
“. . .because I don’t like the group he or she is part of.”
We already have perfectly adequate legislation condemning and punishing violent crimes like the one against Mr. Shepard. New legislation was unnecessary. As Dr. Foreman points out, the hate of his attackers is no more appalling that the hatred of someone who rapes and murders a woman, or beats a child to death.
To physically attack someone without cause is criminal. To believe that the lifestyle they’ve chosen is wrong/sinful, is not criminal. This legislation will lead to the criminalization of ideas, of beliefs.
In no way does Dr. Nielson side with Shepard’s attackers. He makes that clear. His concern is about where this legislation will lead. Pell’s argument about the effects of the sexual revolution are spot-on. This insistence of sexual autonomy will conquer everything in its way, unless it’s checked.
I must concur with Dr. Foreman. I never really understood the distinction of hate crime from other crimes.
Dr. Nielson is not implying that it is “ok” to persecute those of homosexual orientation. This is bigger than the development of this bill. Myself, I fear the growing power of homosexual rights in the United States. Our country is encouraging and protecting people who defy Scripture openly, which puts us in the same boat as them. And as noted, the establishment of this bill is likely to lead the United States down a path which could destroy religious freedom as we know it. Do you want to live in a world in which homosexual pastors are accepted as the norm and youth group leaders can promote their homosexual lifestyles to children? I sure don’t.
Correction:
Just because our country protects and justifies homosexuality does not necessarily put us in the same boat. But as citizens of the Unites States and Christians, we have a responsibility to not condemn the legalization of ungodly behavior. To be in the world, but not of it.
I believe Dr. Greg Bahnsen has written a wonderful book on the topic of Homosexuality and it is a great resource for Christians and unbelievers to read. Reading the case laws in the Old Testament and Paul reference to homosexuality in the New Testament give some perspective of where our stand should be on this lifestyle that is becoming so acceptable in our country. Truly a shame!
I think the major point here is that this legislation defines homosexuals as a Federally protected class. So, if one person attacks another because the other is a polygamist, is left-handed, or is a Baptist, it is a matter of state law and local law enforcement. But if the reason for the attack is that the victim is a homosexual, call the FBI. The class of homosexual is defined by behavior or by declared preference, and from a Christian perspective, such behavior and unrepentant preference are sinful. So, Federal protection is being extended to a class of sinners. Now, we can agree that it is horrendous to physically attack someone because they are a homosexual, just as it would be horrendous to physically attack someone for being a polygamist. But the motive for making homosexuals a protected class is not to stop a rash of crimes that result from a national trend or conspiracy that is not being handled properly by state governments. I am not aware of any such rash of such trend or conspiracy. It seems unlikely that this law will save the life or limb of a single person. The motive behind it is clearly to legislate morality in the worst sense, that is, to put legal stamp of approval on a particular and controversial ethical perspective. We love people who identify themselves as homosexuals because they, like us, are sinners made in God’s image and, if they trust in Christ, redeemed from their sin by His precious blood. We despise homosexual perversion — and that is what it is, a perversion of the created order — because God despises it. By the way, defining sinful behavior as characterizing a legally protected class is not an act of love toward the homosexual. If you love a homosexual, encourage him or her to repent and turn to Christ for pardon. To do otherwise is to thrown an anchor to a drowning man.
“But as citizens of the Unites States and Christians, we have a responsibility to not condemn the legalization of ungodly behavior. To be in the world, but not of it.”
We have a responsibility to NOT condemn evil? I guess that Noah didn’t have responsibility to condemn the evil tht was Nineva, or Christ the evil that man is capable of. Yes, we are in the world, yet not of it. yes, we are looking for our home, the heavenly Jerusalem. Yet, we are also called to be lights in a dark land. We are called to be witnesses to the redeeming work of Christ, that was accomplished on the cross. We are called to see that all of life is redeemed. If that is the case, then the Pietism that you are advocating is nothing more than claptrap. By pulling out of society, by not letting our words be heard, by not being the clay that our Master uses to bring about that change in society, our witness is worthless. In that case, let the Rapture occur and take us home. But to identify with Paul, it is fr better to remain, to see Christ proclaimed, to be that influening factor to bring about the redemption of all of culture, that is our mission here. Politically, we are to render unto Ceasar…and to God that which is God’s. Should we not be active in promoting a Godly lifestyle within culture? Or should we put our brains in neutral, to quote Randy Stonehill, and live in our Christian ghettos? If that were the case, then throughout history, things would be different. What would we see as a culture today without the influences of the Wilberforces, of the Whitfields, of the Knox’s? Christians boldly putting their faith into action, to bring about relational change, both to their fellow man, and between man and God. No, we should and must condemn the legalization of ungodly behavior, and promote the common grace that God has shed abroad in our hearts, with the hopes of bringing some (if not all) into His kingdom.
There is really a great difficulty in addressing this issue from a Christian perspective. On the one hand we of all people should denounce violence and cry for justice for anyone who is a victim of any crime regardless of the intentions of the ones perpetrating it. On the other hand do we have a right to question the federal government when it extends protection to a particular minority especially when that minority is created out of a personal preference. Historically, protected minorities in both “hate crime” and anti-discrimination laws have been individuals who have been persecuted due to things they themselves have no control over, i.e. race, gender, and disability. But now we have a push to include personal lifestyle preference into the realm of “protected right’s”. While this seems innocuous in an age where “discrimination” is seen as possibly the greatest evil the irony is that heading into this realm is discriminatory. The question now becomes, “What personal lifestyles and preferences are to be protected or not?” To “protect” one individuals “right” to a particular personal choice another’s “right” to an opposing personal choice must be either diminished or negated. An individual’s personal choice of lifestyle is protected while say an employer’s personal choice of who they wish to hire is threatened. “Discrimination” occurs to everyone to a varying degree but where society is headed is that only the individual has the right to “discriminate” what they consider to be their own personal good. No one else dare gainsay or “discriminate” against that personal choice. What is and should be a cause for concern for Christians is which personal choices are being “promoted” even in the guise of “protection”. Even more the question of where the inalienable right to autonomy, to be able to define oneself without ANY repercussion, opposition, or even criticism will lead us as a society.
Apologies. In my correction, the word “not” should have been omitted.
Seth, I apologize if I might have inadvertently sounded like I was attacking you. The word “not” in the statement went antithetical to what we learned at Covenant, not to mention Scripture. ith it removed, I heartily concur with you.
On a much different note, this statement is the one I have the most trouble with:
3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.
How is religious liberty grounded in the example of Christ? Sure, he exercised extreme “freedom” in going against the legal system of the pharisees and declaring the New Covenant with his people. But as he left the earth, he told his disciples – not to put all their efforts to stop religious persecution – but to go, preach, preach well, go against the flow, and get ready to be killed for it. THAT was his example, because that’s what happened to him.
Lou Brink: you said “..the motive for making homosexuals a protected class is not to stop a rash of crimes that result from a national trend or conspiracy that is not being handled properly by state governments. I am not aware of any such rash of such trend or conspiracy.”
Just because you are not aware of such a trend does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Almost half of homeless teenagers (”street kids”) in this country identify as gay. Do you think that’s an accident? Their families kicked them out.
Gay teenagers make up 30% of this country’s successful teenage suicides. Do they just do that to themselves for the heck of it, or have their lives become so unmanageable, so painful, that they think dying is their only option?
As study in Vancouver (a noticeably more liberal, less violent place than most of our own cities)found that gay men are twice as likely to be physically assaulted than straight men. The gay community has fought very hard to get recognized because for many of them, it’s an issue of life or death.
When you brand a behavior/lifestyle as disgusting, aberrant, unnatural, you get people reacting with their most basic instincts. The hate/disgust correlation is hardwired into us. And in a society as violent as ours, that translates pretty quickly into actual physical attacks.
Just try walking down Market Street in full drag, your arm slung around another man’s shoulders, on a busy summer evening, and see how it feels. Do you feel safe?
jaymallow, you said: “we have a right to question the federal government when it extends protection to a particular minority especially when that minority is created out of a personal preference.”
Well now, that’s the question, isn’t it. It must be convenient for you to believe that a gay person “chooses” a “lifestyle” that puts them in the position of possibly being disowned by family, shunned by friends, attacked by strangers on the street and possibly isolated from ever having a meaningful romantic relationship, since pretty much our entire culture is centered around the glorification of heterosexual relationships. Clearly, this is not just something that gay people choose for the hell of it. Come on.
I encourage you all to get to know a gay person, any gay person, even one who is “struggling” with their orientation and trying to “re-straight” themselves. Pay attention. Does it really look like an easy “choice”? Do you think these people are having fun? Or are they, like you, trying desperately to carve out a community of folks who love and support them?