Who Would Jesus Employ?
24 January 2010
The BBC News website is carrying an article entitled “Churches fear Equality Bill will conflict with faith“. I don’t know the degree of accuracy, but it alleges that bishops (it doesn’t say which bishops) are concerned that they might be forced to employ gay people, and are preparing for a fight in the House of Lords.
I have two words for people who think that improved protection against unfair discrimination is a bad thing: Grow Up. You’re not going to catch gay by employing an active homosexual, and just as importantly nor are your flock. Believe it or not the Church employs lots of straight people whose lifestyles don’t accord with your faith. They still manage to do their jobs.
I can’t see Jesus behaving like this. He lived his life among the people, not separate from them, and he saw it as an opportunity to minister to them. I’m not going to argue that churches should employ ministers that don’t adhere to their doctrine, that would be ridiculous. I agree with a specific exemption for clergy, because there is no logical alternative. And in that exemption lies the answer: if you require a key worker to live like a priest, then define it as a clerical role. If you can’t justify that, then you can’t justify the discrimination.
24 January 2010 at 2:13 pm
I’m not sure it’s as obvious as you say that clergy should be exempt.
If I started a homophobic organisation I’d be expecting to be shut down, not worried about whether I would be allowed to only employ straight people!
24 January 2010 at 5:07 pm
The idea of clerical exemption is not something that sits particularly easily with me, I’ll be entirely honest. However it’s a pragmatic solution to a philosophical problem; one of the non-negotiable requirements for appointment of a clergyman (in any religion) is that they subscribe to same doctrine of faith as the people they lead. If that doctrine says that homosexuality is a sin, then an active and unrepentant* homosexual is by their action showing that they don’t fulfil the job requirements. It is a practical impossibility to outlaw the doctrine itself without entering dangerous legal territory (e.g. contravention of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights), and the government knows this. Therefore the exemption is necessary to prevent a conflict of law.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the Anglican church really is a homophobic organisation. But it has a long and complicated history, and there is a centuries old obsession within Christianity with other people’s sex lives. I’d rather leave the discussion of my feelings on the matter for another occasion.
* Please keep the word “unrepentant” in context. I don’t want to be quoted in a way that makes me sound homophobic when I’m describing an institutional viewpoint.
24 January 2010 at 5:25 pm
It just baffles me that things that would otherwise be unacceptable become so because of the magic “religion” label.
The National Front, say, sincerely believe in discriminating against “foreigners”. The christian church sincerely believe in discriminating against gay people.
Why does one of these get a free pass and the other not?
24 January 2010 at 6:09 pm
Please don’t use the term “the christian church” when referring to beliefs and practices of a subset of Christians, it complicates the discussion.
I do get what you’re saying. What makes religious expression different is a matter of philosophy. The NF is an organisation whose beliefs are entirely about living people, and the consequences of their actions are entirely within the natural realm. They are entitled to believe what they do, but the ECHR has provision for their expression of this to be limited where it infringes the rights and freedoms of others.
A religious organisation, on the other hand, is concerned with the supernatural realm, and with the effect that your actions have beyond this life. As a scientist you cannot objectively prove the non-existence of God, or of a soul, and therefore need to be open to the possibility, however sceptical you are, that one (or more) of the religions might be right. The use of law to compel a religious person to do something that they believe will compromise their eternal soul, or somebody else’s, is even worse than compelling a non-religious person to participate in a religious act. If the non-religious person is right, it’s not going to have an eternal negative consequence.
In practice, there is always a degree of self-selection; I doubt the NF get many non-whites applying for positions. Churches though can have an surprisingly high proportion of the membership that express disagreement or even dissent with the official line. Thus the self-selection process doesn’t always work. Arguably this is how it should be, but the ECHR specifically mentions religion to recognise that people can take action to protect their own integrity, and their soul, if they feel it is compromised.
24 January 2010 at 6:26 pm
Your argument implicitly sets up a “line of maximum repugnance”.
You (I think) want to claim discrimination against homosexuality is the right side of that line, and (I hope) that ritual torture of children to purge evil spirits is the wrong side.
What principles could reasonable people from all religions (and none) agree on to determine where that line is drawn?
24 January 2010 at 7:07 pm
Truthfully, I don’t think discriminating against homosexuality is the right side of any line. Please don’t infer that.
The issue is simply that you cannot reasonably expect that a church will agree to be led by somebody who does not share their beliefs. If you try, they will be met with resistance and the congregation will exercise their right to worship elsewhere (Article 9 again). To knowingly hire somebody and put them in that position does not seem particularly responsible. Whether the congregation are correct in their beliefs is not the point.
24 January 2010 at 7:20 pm
Apologies, I wasn’t inferring that – I was unclear.
What I inferred was that you believe churches have the right to stick with those practices (even if you don’t believe them yourself).
Could lots of organisations not make that argument? “We can’t employ a black shop assistant because people will shop elsewhere” perhaps?
24 January 2010 at 7:34 pm
Organisations do that all the time, they’re just not open about it. It’s not exactly the same of course, but it’s uncomfortably similar. I have a question for you: do you think it would be reasonable to expect a Christian church to employ an outspoken atheist as a minister? This is also necessary discrimination, on the same logical basis, but without touching the contentious ground of sexuality.
24 January 2010 at 7:44 pm
I think there’s important differences there
Discrimination on sex, sexuality and race is important because there is genuine and serious prejudice out there that affects people’s lives.
I would judge discrimination against atheists (or christians) to be roughly on a par with discrimination against ginger people.
There are a few wacky people who really do believe atheists and ginger people are inferior, but on the whole people can get on their lives with minimal impact.
24 January 2010 at 8:05 pm
I call argumentum ad populum here. Discrimination against race is genetic discrimination, and so is discrimination against “gingers”. The fact the social acceptability is inverse to the number of people involved is irrelevant.
24 January 2010 at 8:30 pm
No, I’m not arguing “unfair discrimination against gingers is less important because there’s less people involved.
What I’m arguing is that the secondary effects of discrimination are more important than the effects on the individual.
There isn’t a genuine pool of hatred against ginger people. If somebody does discriminate on ginger people, it’s unfortunate for the individual involved.
In contrast, when somebody (especially a church!) discriminates against gay people it perpetuates and legitimises homophobia.
“Obviously I have no problem with… you people… but I don’t think the local community would be very happy about it. My hands are tied!”
24 January 2010 at 8:50 pm
It’s still a fallacy, though not necessarily ad populum. You’re arguing that due to an underlying social problem (which I agree exists) that it would be better to enforce the antidiscrimination law even in the case of appointment of clergy. This is a distraction, as it ignores the point that, regardless of the consequences, it’s not tenable to appoint somebody to a position that depends on profession of a particular set of beliefs if they publicly profess otherwise.
24 January 2010 at 9:02 pm
Well, here’s an interesting wrinkle (not intended to support my argument in particular…)
Suppose a man who happens to be gay wants to be a member of the clergy. He agrees that homosexual acts are sinful (perhaps he practices them sometimes anyway, perhaps not).
Would it be “tenable” to appoint that person?
24 January 2010 at 9:26 pm
Yes, lots of churches are comfortable with allowing a celibate gay man into the clergy. Don’t forget that the world’s largest Christian communion still expect all of their priests (except defected married Anglicans) to be celibate (actually, continent) which means that sexuality is irrelevant. There is an understanding that straight and gay alike are tempted to sin, and generally those who believe that homosexual acts are by default sinful would define any extramarital intercourse the same way. It just happens to be a be a stricter discipline for homosexuals as they do not have the option of marriage (that the church would recognise).