In clairvoyant fashion, David French anticipated earlier this week the central tenet of Sally Kohn’s argument yesterday at the Daily Beast in favor of forcing the ordained Christian pastors of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho’s Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their consciences — namely, that they operate a for-profit business, so obviously they surrendered their First Amendment rights. On that point, I would refer you back to David’s excellent post, and to Eugene Volokh, who has the legal details.
But Kohn also takes the opportunity to opine on matters theological, and that merits a separate response. Here is Kohn:
It’s hard to argue that opposing marriage equality is a central tenet of Christianity when majorities of Christian voters support same-sex marriage, as do an increasing number of denominations. In Kansas, where Republicans tried to pass a law legalizing discrimination by private businesses and individuals, the pastor of the state’s largest church took a stand for equal treatment, saying, “Jesus routinely healed, fed, and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.”
Pastor Andy Stanley, head of the second-largest evangelical church in America, said, “Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn’t see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn’t want to sell its products to a gay couple, it’s their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.” In other words, using Christianity to rationalize discrimination against one’s fellow human beings doesn’t seem very, well, Christian.
Unsurprisingly, the Christianity of Sally Kohn is benign and bashful: Jesus is warm and fuzzy to everybody, a live-and-let-live kind of guy (you know, like with the money-changers). The anonymous pastor quoted above is quite right to point to the charity Jesus offered to all sorts. His love knew no bounds, and the true Church’s does not, either. But Christ-like love and support for Sally Kohn’s preferred political causes are not necessarily synonymous.
But more to the point, Sally Kohn’s Church is, conveniently, structured in such a way as to be eminently friendly to her cause. For instance, this Christian Church does not have a scripturally grounded body of doctrine, the development of which is understood to be led by the Holy Spirit. Rather, it has an electorate that votes much like Massachusetts (which must mean it is divinely inspired).
Of course, Christian doctrine can be elaborated in revelatory ways, and those in the pews sometimes have a role in that. But doctrine, at heart, is not democratic; it is designed to keep the Barque steady when the waves of public opinion roil.
The same is true, in its own way, of the First Amendment. First Amendment protections were designed precisely in order to shield citizens from majoritarian tyranny. However big his church, Andy Stanley’s (controversial, note) opinions on homosexuality and Christianity have no bearing on the legal matter at hand. But by Kohn’s logic, conscience protections are contingent upon majority approval.
This illogic is encapsulated in the last line quoted above, an exercise in question begging, given that whether Christians are engaging in “discrimination” is precisely the issue. For Kohn, defending their actions by invoking religious beliefs is proof that Christians are doing something that violates their religious beliefs (and, ipso facto, the law). That is certainly a convenient setup for her.
Of course, all of my claims and counterarguments are likely for naught in the face of Kohn’s final theological stroke:
Jesus also spoke very clearly about the dangers of private profit (“You cannot serve God and money.”), but I don’t see any of these so-called religious businesses rushing to embrace those teachings.
Yep. Got ’em.