Not Prosecuted in the Name of the Lord

As a young doctor I craved learning new, “hands on” procedures. One of these was neonatal circumcision which was uniformly requested in those days. The reason for this procedure being done was mostly glossed over—it was an entrenched tradition in this country and had been for decades. I have a friend whose experience was like mine growing up—there was only one uncircumcised male in his High School whose nickname became, “Anteater.” When in Brazil as a child, I saw uncircumcised penises in a pool changing room and assumed that appearance reflected the Brazilian nationality………

In the early 1980’s I became aware of a movement that characterized circumcisions done routinely at birth as unnecessary, barbaric, mutilating, and in fact, a form of assault and battery. I subscribed to a newsletter by a lobbying organization called Nocirc. Horror stories were anecdotally told supporting their movement’s ideal ie eliminating routine circumcision as practiced in the United States. The newsletter actively lobbied for a parent to come forward and with their support, sue the doctor who did their child’s circumcision for assault and battery. They believed the informed consent prior to surgery was very vulnerable too such an action.

A caveat to their solicitation: neonatal circumcision is barbaric and frank assault and battery, unless it is done for religious reasons.

“Oh,” I thought, “how interesting. Assault and Battery can be OK if it is done for religious reasons--as is barbarism.” How would a judge resolve that one?

Religious exceptionalism is pretty common. An article in last month’s Esquire points to yet a different example: Colorado Christian University is a private religious (evangelical) college. Students accepted to this college agree to live by a code of conduct that includes, not drinking alcohol, using drugs, or having sex outside of marriage. There are rules reflecting a need to be considerate of your roommates, and identifying people who do not live up to the code of conduct. So far, so good. The article focuses on what happened to an 18 yo woman who came to realize she was sexually attracted to women during her first quarter in college. Her roommates dragged it out of her and reported her to school authorities (also mandated in the code of conduct) who gave feedback to her after an interview; she had a time frame to reflect and change.

She reflected on the fundamental question and perhaps on this from the code of conduct:

Colossians 3:12-17 provides an appropriate summary of the goals for our community:

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against each other. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all of these virtues, put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom ... with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father.”

She failed her charge, though the article does not clarify to what extent. She had a “love interest” whom she met during the Thanksgiving Break and this confirmed to her, an attraction to her same sex. I don’t know if they consummated a sexual relationship which begs the question—do you sin for having a homosexual relationship devoid of any physical act? Would simple vs deep kissing be considered such an act?

When interrogated, she was honest. There were consequences:

She was isolated in a different dorm and lived by herself.

The threat of expulsion was raised.

Her Scholarship was in jeopardy.

She was ineligible for work on campus.

She faced what she described as harassment.

She had obligatory attendance to educational seminars whose object was to help change her sexual orientation.

She suffered, became anorexic, depressed, and self destructive. She left the university—it is unclear if she left of her own free will or if she was expelled. She owed the college money. Over time, she joined a law suit against the college for this outcome. To date, they have lost in court.

The court case hinged in part on an application of the tenets of Title IX which we know best for being legislation that required colleges to provide resources for women’s sports on an equitable basis. Core to Title IX is prejudice regarding sex, sexual orientation*, race, and religion not being allowed. Colorado Christian University receives federal funds. When the legal challenge came, they simply stated that under Title IX, they were entitled to a religious exemption.

Some thoughts:

1) My daughter applied to Medical Schools on the West Coast after graduating college. Loma Linda Medical School was one of those schools. She did not know much about Seventh Day Adventists who manage the school but upon learning of their code of conduct (not dissimilar to CCU) my daughter, now in her mid twenties, withdrew her application. She was not a Christian but she had morals and would not sign a document regarding her commitment without fully intending to live up to that commitment. I think it is easier to know yourself at age 25 than age 18; legal contracts are binding for 18 year olds which does beg a question: the university had a legal right to hold her to both the contract and the financial debt, but morally, could they not see that she was in fact an evangelical Christian whose feelings, decisions, not to mention sexual orientation were in flux and merited some consideration. Given the circumstances, could they have simply parted ways without all the trauma she underwent? In parting ways, could they not have forgiven her debt both out of Christian charity and with the practical consideration that they could avoid the legal action?

2) The article points out that the legal judgement, citing the religious exception misses a point: whose religious freedom is at risk here? This woman was evangelical, full of passion for the message at CCU with this one exception—her sexual orientation. There are gay evangelicals and their faith, given the state of affairs in Evangelical-land is something to admire for the audacity it represents. Giving me comfort and a point of the article is that younger evangelicals as well as non religious young people do not seem to be as troubled by sexual orientation as their older/wiser parents and leaders.

3) The culture wars include much thought about the separation of Church and State which as a concept was initially relatively simple. By declaring it, governments got out of the business of collecting money for churches (the colonies commonly had a tax that went the preferred state religion), and having to negotiate the endless interfaith battles common to Protestantism. The government would have no role in enforcement around religious practices though the Mormons present an interesting case……. In our modern world, it is more complicated as the government disseminates money to many diverse interests and religious organizations share access to that trough. My frustration with a case like this would be largely resolved if the school did not accept funds from a democratically elected government which currently has a tradition and intention to protect minorities. Likely a national referendum on gay rights would find a majority agreeing to live and let live and not allow prejudice regarding sexual orientation. The current government(s) will avoid just such referendums. Allowing clearly prejudiced organizations to move forward without the support of government is something we have historically allowed again, in the name of religious freedom and diversity. The “Chosen people” and their rigid exclusions are worth wrestling with regarding their budget sheets but if that is not easily resolved; perhaps gay Evangelicals should start their own church, right? Perhaps such schools should —as my daughter did—not accept a contract that violates their morality or ability to live up to the commitment—in this case money and Title IX assumptions.

* To complicate matters, Title IX in its original form made no mention of sexual orientation. We were not talking about that in those days. Executive Decrees have added it and have subtracted it (under Trump). Sexual orientation is currently considered protected in the current administration…….