What a boost my ministry gained through the D.Min. program I took two decades ago. The lectures were superior, the reading deep, and the discussions insightful. One of the most valuable and lasting lessons came in the opening orientation. That academic program, offered jointly by Columbia Theological Seminary and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, would hold us students to certain standards of performance, we were told. No surprise there. However, I bristled when we heard that one of those standards was the demand that we use inclusive language in all our written work. "You will be marked down if your choices of pronouns are gender exclusive," we heard. I wanted to react, but the professor's explanation was winsome. "It's basically about loving your neighbors as yourself," he said. As a white male who had enjoyed many status advantages, my conscience couldn't argue his point.
What a boost my ministry gained through the D.Min. program I took two decades ago. The lectures were superior, the reading deep, and the discussions insightful. One of the most valuable and lasting lessons came in the opening orientation. That academic program, offered jointly by Columbia Theological Seminary and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, would hold us students to certain standards of performance, we were told. No surprise there. However, I bristled when we heard that one of those standards was the demand that we use inclusive language in all our written work. "You will be marked down if your choices of pronouns are gender exclusive," we heard. I wanted to react, but the professor's explanation was winsome. "It's basically about loving your neighbors as yourself," he said. As a white male who had enjoyed many status advantages, my conscience couldn't argue his point. Through the ensuing 20 hours of lectures and discussions, I found the prof's use of language refreshingly attentive to all, yet unobtrusive. Just a few weeks after finishing that class, I read in Newsweek of the new, burgeoning movement for "political correctness." It stated that one of the first academic institutions to require such inclusivity was Columbia Theological Seminary. Being a bit trusting and naïve, I preached a few weeks later on loving our neighbors as ourselves. I promoted the need to use inclusive language. Little did I anticipate how folks would react to such changes. Little did I imagine that hostility would arise from within the Church of Jesus Christ. We Christians conserve tradition instinctively. The "preservation of the truth" stands as one of the Great Ends of the Church (Book of Order, G-1.0200). However, given the constant evolution of language and given the higher calling to fulfill our Lord's love commandment, this linguistic development sounded like genuine progress to me. This legislated language evolution reflected a legislated behavior evolution. Back in the 1960s, courts and legislatures identified a kind of behavior so despicable it deserves special laws and penalties. They singled out "hate crimes" -- violent crimes motivated by prejudice toward race, color, religion, or national origin -- for special treatment as a federal offense. The courts were directed to hand down more serious sentences for bias-motivated crimes. On May 3 of this year, the House of Representatives by a wide majority sent to the White House a bill, H.R. 1529, that adds to existing legislation gender, sexual orientation, and disability as categories to be protected under federal hate-crimes laws. By the time you read this, odds are good that President George W. Bush will have vetoed it. Vetoed? Why? Prior to Congress' adoption, the White House warned of a veto. The legislation "is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable" because state laws already ban violent crime; it needlessly extends the range of crimes in which federal authorities exert jurisdiction. A second reason, not acknowledged by the White House, is that many conservative Christian groups have been working to defeat the bill, mostly because of the protections it offers gays and lesbians. Why do that? Yes, conservatives want to conserve traditional standards of sexual morality. That's understood. But protecting individuals against violence qualifies as a traditional Christian value, too. Nevertheless, James Dobson, Focus on the Family founder and radio broadcaster, told his supporters that the law would be "the first step to criminalize our rights as Christians to believe that some behaviors are sinful." He added, "Pastors preaching from Scripture on homosexuality could be threatened with persecution and prosecution." Wrong. As much as I would love to restrict some of the hate mongering being promoted in the name of God, hate crimes legislation has done nothing to stop any of that -- consider the shock jocks on the radio. The bill deals only with violent crimes. It explicitly contains a provision that says nothing in the bill should "be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free-speech or free-exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution." We Christians need to support laws that protect the lives of all those around us, no matter what we think of them or their behavior. Better yet, we Christians are commanded -- personally and collectively, through individual care and through political influence -- to love our neighbors as ourselves. They taught me that in seminary. They got that idea from Jesus. --JHH
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed