Scholar warns against Christian pacifism on gay aggression

Dr. Robert Gagnon, a well known theological scholar, who has researched and written considerably on the subject of gay christianity and its theological dangers for the church, today warned that Christian pacificism in the wake of the Crystal Dixon incident will be damning for the church. In case you had not heard, Dixon (pictured), the Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo was suspended from her job by the university president for a column she wrote to the Toledo Blade in response to a progay column written by the newspaper’s editor in chief.

In a letter Gagnon said:

“I have written an open letter to the President of the University of Toledo , Lloyd Jacobs. Jacobs suspended a black female administrator (Crystal Dixon) for lovingly questioning, in a newspaper editorial, a comparison between being homosexual and being black. In my open letter I cite six scientific studies that show the fallacy of comparing homosexuality to race and make a brief philosophical case against incentives for homosexual practice.

Think about the audacity of Jacobs’ actions. Although identifying herself in passing in the newspaper editorial as an employee of the university, Ms. Dixon did not claim to be representing the official university stance on homosexual practice. But apparently President Jacobs thinks that he can control the public expression of religious and moral values of his employees, not only in the workplace environment (that would be bad enough) but also outside the workplace. Of course, if I worked under Jacobs’ totalitarian regime I would be suspended or fired for daring to make the arguments that I make in my open letter and that President Jacobs does not have the ability to answer.

When will Christians wake up to the seriousness of the threat to our civil liberties posed by the homosexualist agenda and vote accordingly? Jacobs can attempt such outrages only because he lives in a political culture that on a state, local, and increasingly national level is becoming bold in affirming homosexual practice and abridging the liberties of those who disagree.

Unfortunately, as we have cited numerous times here at GCM Watch there is scant difference between the goals of the gay christian movement and the gay political movement. If fact, the gay christian movement seems to take its cues from its political counterparts.
With Dr. Gagnon, we join our voice and urge you to speak up and challenge any power, authority or entity whether religious or secular which supports the denial of our God given right to speak this unconvenient truth.

We ask: where is your boldness to stand with God’s truth? The apostles were beaten and threatened (Acts 4:29; 5:40-41), but they prayed not for God to deliver them, but to give them boldness to continue speaking the truth about Jesus Christ.

12 thoughts on “Scholar warns against Christian pacifism on gay aggression

  1. I am printing out Dr. Gagnon’s letter and taking copies of it to church this Sunday! This is not a public sector issue -it is an issue that is directly aimed at the body of Christ.

    Thanks for the post!

  2. I read Dr. Gagnon’s letter and all I can say is “Wow!” I have never heard it put like that. I have been educated. This letter brings some clarity to issues I was facing personally. Not saying it is absolute, but this makes more sense than the baseless arguments heretorfore. Thank you.

  3. Politics is one’s system of ethics applied to the state. In other words, politics answers the question, “How should the government conduct itself and what are its ethical responsibilities to the people its governs?” As Christians we recognize the legitimate function of the state as one ordained by God, even if that office is filled with a tyrant such as Nero. (Romans 13:1-7) The other two covenantally ordained spheres of society are the family and the church with their respective ordained leaders. However, in a free society when one sphere of society abdicates its responsibilities, the vacuum that is created will not remain void – one of the others leaders will step in to take over that sphere. When family leaders step in the state is run by the Mob or tribal chieftains. In our case, the church leaders have become weak and have abdicated their responsibility with the result that the civil government has been more than happy to step in, take over and become tyrannical. Once it has gained such power it will never want to let it go, it will continue to want to be the head of the family and the church. The result is thought control and absolute obedience to the state. Historically, no tyranny of a government which imposes its will over the church or family has ever been overturned without a major cost to those who were willing to take a stand for what is right. I am afraid, however, that the American people are more than happy to turn over their responsibilities and their rights in an exchange for “free” health care, social welfare, corporate welfare, a 503(c) welfare status for the church and so forth. But in the offering of “free” (paid by tax payers at the cost of a family’s inheritance) others true God-given freedoms (such as speech and worship) are lost. Canada is a perfect example of this as it is already illegal “hate speech” to teach that God prohibits homosex from the Bible. The USA is next…..

  4. Rik, well said my friend.
    This really brings to mind that it will only and usually be a remnant to stand up to the tide. I never expext masses of Christians (used loosely) to fight back because many are simply too concerned with the cares of this life and too wrapped up in their own sins to be what Daniel 11:32b said.

    But in scripture, there is overwhelming evidence that God works through one or a few to accomplish his purpose. In that Im very confident that despite what satan is trying to do, he will not succeed.

  5. Has anyone looked at this from the race angle? Isn’t it strange the “so-called” passionate liberals would throw an African American Woman under the bus. OH! That’s right! Homosexuals are the ultimate minority. Shameful! The progress people of color had to come through to reach equality and now even they are scorned and mocked by a group that never had to fight for their lives, be deemed second class citizens, or were enslaved. I think its a great injustice when the “so-called” progressives try to equivocate minorities with gays. What an insult! Think about it. That’s like saying that being Black is the same as being deviant. Why not? African Americans should be repulsed by this. Huh! I don’t see the NAACP coming to the side of this woman. Oh, That’s right. The Homosexuality issue is the next great civil rights movement for the grifters, er, uh, I mean civil rights leaders. Throw your own under the bus when they no longer bring home the bacon. SHAMEFUL!


  6. There is a big issue here. Freedom of religion was never intended to be a part of politics. So frankily I am frustrated at the constant inclusion of ones relgious ideologies in American politics.

    With reference to Crystal Dixon, she should have known beeter. First of all her position as Associate Vice President of Human Resources for the University of Toledo placed her in a position in which she should not have written this letter voicing her religious philosophy. Furthermore, by providing an excuse for the disparity in benefits at the University of Toledo, she further removed her remarks from those of a private individual back into the realm of offical representing a public institution. Her actions thus clearly violated not only the schools antidiscrimation policy but Federal law.

    The point I’m making once again is that we have separation of church and state for a reason-ones personal religious ideologies have no place in government or politics.

  7. Janet, what official government document authorizes the separation of church and state? Please cite the specific passage and context so those who are unfamilar with it can understand your point. Also where is the phrase “separation of church and state” found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

    Secondly, what is your authoritive source which excludes “freedom of religion” from government or politics. Please cite that also.

    Third, is it your contention that free speech garunteed in Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights is to be trumped by a government institurion’s policies?

  8. First of all, thank you for allowing me the forum to express my viewpoint on this subject. In order to address the issues that you have raised, I have to first give you a brief background on Constitutional Law and the structure of our Federal Government. The Constitution is sometimes refered to as a living document…In and of itself the Constitution did not afford rights to Women, African-Americans, and Non-American born Europeans. It was the Supreme Court that later INTERPRETED the Constitution to extend these rights, ie Topeka vs. Board of Education, etc. In addition to the Supreme Court interpretations, Congress amended the Bill of Rights to extend citizenship and later the right to vote to Women and African-Americans.
    The concept of sepeartion of church and state, is not a new concept and indeed it does exist! Thomas Jeffereson, the chief architect of the Constitution initially expressed the scope of the 1st amendment in an 1802 letter to the Danburry Baptists that expressed the concept of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE based on the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Thereafter, the concept of “seperation of church and state” was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1878, in Reynolds v United States and has been quoted more than 25 times in jurisprudence since. Most recently, in Everson v Board of Education, the Court stated, “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.” Therefore, although the Constitution itself never contained the words “seperation of church and state” it has since been interepreted by the Supreme Court of the United States to have this effect.
    With respect to religion not being included in government or politics, this point is mute, based on the previous cited authority.
    Last but not least, although free speech is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court has placed limitations on when and how, speech may be made. For example, inflamatory speech such as that by the KKK or Nazi groups may be limited to time, place, and manner restrictions. Furthermore, public officials are limited in speech that they may use while acting in an official capacity. This is why I stated initially that Crystal Dixon should not have made such comments because of her position with the University of Toledo. The Univeristy of Toledo is a public NOT a private institution and its employees, especially high ranking administrators are bound by the University Policy as well as applicable Federal Law (in this case Title IX, which prevents schools that receive federal funding from discriminating based on among other things sexual orientation). Restrictions on high ranking administrators speech and behavior applies while employees are acting in BOTH official and non-official capacities. For example, a professor that has sex with a consenting adult student, would be reprimanded if it violates the Universities code of conduct. In the present situation, Crystal Dixon, clearly expressed views antithetical to the istitution for which she worked. What’s more, she even attempted to provide justification for disparate employee benefits in her letter. The situation would have been quite different if this were a private school, such as Notre Dame, or Bob Jones University, etc., however, in this case it was not.
    For all of these reasons, my opinion stands—She should not have written this letter without the reasonable expectation that she would be fired.

  9. As an African American Lesbian Christian I feel I have more clout to speak on this matter than any heterosexual person. Contrary to your “scientific” theory the consequences of oppression I face as a Black person, as a lesbian, as a Christian and as a women have no hierarchy on the oppression scale. The pain and destruction is all the same whether I’m experiencing it based on my Blackness or my Lesbianism. The oppressor does not get a pass simply because he/she cloaks it in religion. We’ve seen that done enough to recognize the lie: slavery, position of women, what it means to be prosperous, divorce, etc.

    [edited] GCMW: please reserve your gay history lessons for another blog.

    On another issue, Ms. Dixon choose to work in a field, Human Resources, that requires that she respect and protect ALL employees, including lgbt employees. If her religious understanding restricts her from doing so then she cannot fulfill the duties of her job, and thus should not hold that position. HR is about equality in the workplace. Once she has let it be known publicly that her views hinder her ability to do work towards equality for all employees, then she must deal with the consequences of her personal decision. I have a right to make a living to support myself and my family, regardless of what any one person or group of people think about me.

    No weapon formed against me shall prosper!
    To God be the Glory for the things He has done!

    Peace and love

  10. Ok, Janet thank you. Youre welcome to express your pov here.

    Let me see if Im reading you straight.

    1. There exists no phrase or explicit reference to the phrase “separation of church and state” in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. Rather, it was and idea “expressed” in a letter to a group of Baptists in 1802. Was that letter ratified in any court of law? Is the wall intended to keep government out of religion or religion out of government?

    2. No one (inlcuding homosexuals) have any rights per the aforementtioned foundational American legal canons. They are only “interpreted” rights. So rights are in the eye of the beholder?

    Finally, if this is all simply about interpreted rights and living documents, shouldnt your opinion on Crystal Dixon be equally applied to homosexuals who commit the same acts but want protection from being fired?
    Im smelling double standard and hypocrisy, plain and simple. Neither, the court, the law nor the “interpretation” of the law are perfect. Dont cite these cases as if they are perfect standards of judgement. My conclusion of your opinion being based on such imperfection is biased.

Comments are closed.