Full and Unequivocal Equality for Calvinists

Should Calvinists also demand transdenominational bathrooms?

That’s one question that I pondered after reading David Gushee’s simplistic brief for LBGT (via Alan Jacobs). Why Gushee felt he could leave off Q from LBGT suggests that he is himself opposed to full and equal treatment for Queers. But that’s not the point.

Gushee is an ethicist so political philosophy may not be his strong suit. It’s not mine. But when he celebrates prohibitions against discrimination you begin to wonder if he has thought through a society where government is reluctant to throw its authority around, where civil society functions as a buffer between citizens and government, and what federalism might mean. In other words, Gushee seems to have in view a society unlike the United States — where many divisive matters become either-or, winner take all policies. We used to call that Communist Russia.

But most visible institutions of American life had abandoned discrimination against LGBT people before that. Today, these same groups are increasingly intolerant of any remaining discrimination, or even any effort to stay in a neutral middle ground. As with the fight against racial discrimination in the 1960s and 1970s, sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination is rapidly being rejected by society.

Institutions where full LGBT equality is mandatory now include any entity associated with the federal government, including the military and the civil service.

What I (mmmeeeEEE) don’t understand is why sexual orientation needs to be the basis for the identity of citizens. Why cannot a person claim their rights by virtue of being a person and let other attributes dangle (as Tom Regan put it).

The same goes for my identity as a Reformed Protestant. If I apply for a job at a university, a government contract, or a mortgage and identify myself exclusively as a Calvinist, I know there’s a good chance I’ll get turned down for at least two of those applications. In fact, one recent writer, a criminology professor no less, blamed America’s rates of incarceration and punitive criminal justice system on Calvinism. Imagine what Gushee would say if anyone blamed LBGTs for anything. To attribute blame is discrimination.

Which is also life. People discriminate all the time. Breaking Bad stinks compared to The Wire. Wilt Chamberlain was way better than Bill Russell. Harvard University is better than Liberty University.

What Gushee might do instead is be discriminating about discrimination. When is it appropriate? When isn’t it? He might even want to think about ways that all of us can resist foregrounding those parts of our identity that are the most objectionable to others. Some things we do have something wrong with them (and there is something wrong with that). So we make adjustments. Civility rarely comes with getting up in someone’s grill.


5 thoughts on “Full and Unequivocal Equality for Calvinists

  1. If Muslims are recently sectarian, are LBGT?

    His main argument seems to be that Sunni Muslims in general (and probably the Shiite Muslims as well) didn’t have a particularly sectarian identity until the Iraq War in 2003. The promoter of a sectarian identity is the Salafi (Wahhabi) movement funded by the Wahhabi state Saudi Arabia. This promotion had made some headway in rural areas of Syria and Iraq (and in Afghanistan), but they neither became dominant nor even a threat in any intact secular state (including, before 2003, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc.). Sectarian identity is therefore not something historically associated with modern Islam. It is a specific political movement that has, in every case, arisen where state control has fallen and not been replaced by another state. Interestingly, the Wahhabi Movement had its start in the late 18th and early 19th century. But by the beginning of the 21st century it had only managed to capture Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf States.


  2. dgh–“Some things we do have something wrong with them.”

    amen to that, my inside and my outside, they don’t match

    I have noticed that Hebrews 11 does not “foreground those parts” of the believers that were objectionable.

    John 4: 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, yet you Jews say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus told her, “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.”

    Jesus does come off a bit sectarian (a self-hating Jew?) when he attacked that temple building. Why did Jesus need to discriminate and exclude instead of just being positive? Maybe he forgot his civility for a moment and the need for mediating institutions. http://tankstotractors.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-you-serve-jesus-who-whips-people.html


  3. As to Gushee’s leaving off the Q, I’d note that this seems to be common among progressive evangelicals. It seems that guys like Gushee are just coming around to embracing the 1980s version of what it means not to be heterosexual. He’s planning on reading Judith Butler in 2025.


  4. I will say that whether one agrees with “progressive” evangelicals or not, they are showing the insanity of trying to keep up with culture that we often see in some on the right who are trying to “reach the city.” Both groups are hopelessly behind where the culture is.


  5. Uniform carmaliztion is very difficult to discriminate against when one’s appetite is already fully committed to devour. The raw, rancid, overdone stuff just need to be cast to the dogs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.