Since the 2015 Obergefell SCOTUS decision, more and more religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers have been singing the Things Ain't What They Used To Be blues. BTW, by referring to singing that song as blues, I am referring to the title only because the lyrics of the song look optimistically to the future (click here for a lyricless performances of the song). FYI here, Things Ain't What They Used To Be was written by Mercer Ellington, Duke's son, and has been performed by quite a few jazz artists.
What should be noted here is why I am saying that these Christian leaders and influencers have been singing the blues since the Obergefell decision. That is because the Obergefell decision was the final nail on the coffin of the recognition that Christianity no longer had the influence on society that it once had. It wasn't that Christianity hadn't already lost its grip on society and culture; it had. But the Obergefell decision cemented that in the minds of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians.
Another singing of those blues was written by Dr Anthony Bradley (click here for a bio). Only in this article, Bradley is not complaining about the Obergefell decision, he is writing to question how universities are showing their commitment to pursuing diversity, equity and inclusion by how they are screening their faculty applications. And one of his first comments was to hearken back to how most Ivy League schools were started not just as religious schools, but as 'religious missions' (click here for the article).
Bradley starts his article by lamenting over the fact that American universities have now 'replaced' Judeo-Christian religion with a 'religious commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.' By religious Bradley is talking about both the degree of commitment to those ideas, especially diversity, and the faith statements that are presumed by such a commitment. Thus incoming professors are to trust that increasing the diversity of the students in college will promote 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' (DEI).
Citing Justin MacBreyer's work, Bradley repeats how statements that show agreement with DEI, which can be used to qualify those applying to teach at secular institutions, and Christian faith statements, such as statements made by those who would teach at Christian institutions, are similar. Bradley repeats MacBreyer's point here so as to attribute a religious nature to the promotion of DEI. Both kinds of statements can be used to distinguish those who believe in the mission of the institution from those who don't. Both require those who would teach to accept and support claims that are beyond their 'epistemic pay grade,' both exhibit 'tribal loyalty,' and both religious faith and diversity statements act in ways that end any debate or discussion on their respective issues.
Bradley goes on to express his concern on what might follow what he describes as a religious devotion to DEI. What follows, according to Bradley, is an acceptance of progressive ideology, especially the belief that 'institutions are the causes of injustice and human failure,' and thus to correct our injustices, we only need to correct our institutions. This also includes the believe that 'material and social power disparities' between racial minorities and those who are privileged provide adequate proof that there are structural problems that require attention.
In the end, Bradley believes that these commitments to DEI statements filters our those evangelical candidates from those applying to teach. And if those commitment to statement doesn't filter evangelical candidates out, then it 'binds their consciences' into following those statements and the assumptions on which those statements are based. This might indicate that Bradley objects to challenging of the societal structures from the old status quo being challenged and thus are displaced by political progressives.
Bradley ironically concludes that the disparity between the percentage of the faculty of Arts and Sciences who are at least significantly conservative in their leanings and those who aren't proves that the new institutional structure that is built around DEI principles proves his point. As a result, he cites MacBreyer in predicting that American universities will become less diverse in terms of their position on DEI.
I struggle with Bradley's overall position here. But I have read enough similar views from other Christians that would make me say that his views are understandable for Christians to have.
First, equating religious beliefs with secular views can be problematic. Can a secular movement, theory, or ideology be considered a religion? The answer to that question depends on one's context. From a Scriptural point of view, anything that people value more that they value God is idolatry and thus religious in nature. Here we need to always remember what Chris Hedges said about idolatry. He basically said that the core of any idolatry is self-worship.
But if we were to look at the issue from how our nation's founding father saw religion, the answer would be that religion always involves a belief in a supernatural deity. And thus there is no adherence to a secular movement, theory, or ideology that could be called religious. The reason why they said that was because belief in a supernatural, powerful being was how religion was referenced back then. And they knew that religion could be very divisive. In addition, in writing the Establishment Clause, they were concerned with preventing any religion from gaining a privileged position in governing the nation. This was especially true with Jefferson and Madison and was evident in Virginia's constitution of 1776. Though not all state constitutions were so religiously neutral, Virginia's was and it served as an influential model for the writing of the Establishment Clause.
Bradley, as evidenced by his citing of McBrayer, is not the only religiously conservative Christian to call some adherences to secular theories and ideologies religious commitments, there are others. And it is quite understandable as to why they would think that way. It is because by making adherence to secular thought a religious issue, then religion becomes a fixed cost when it comes to movements, theories, and ideologies that any part of society adopts. What follows then is that religiously conservative Christians who see things as Bradley does, feel that they have brushed aside any concerns about imposing their religion or religious values on society.
And so if we couple that equating of secular values with religious values with Christianity's fall from being a dominant force on much of society, what follows is a sense of entitlement and duty for Christians, like Bradley, to restore Christianity's past position and to recapture lost ground. Here we should remember Bradley's lament over how some of our universities that were founded as Christian missions have fallen from grace into secular hands. What Bradley's lament seems to have missed is that society now seems to have a higher percentage of unbelievers whom universities are now serving. And thus it seems only logical that these universities broaden the scope of their mission in terms of serving their students.
At the same time, Bradley seems to have associated political and social conservatism with the conservative Christian faith and progressivism with what seems to be anti-Christian ideology. And because of how he makes these two associations, we need to ask if there are any progressive ideas that us religiously conservative Christians can agree with. After all, what American, especially one who belongs to a minority, could not sign on to statements that commit to promoting dignity, equity, and inclusiveness for all people?
For Bradley, the answer is that he can because of the implications he sees in the statements supporting DEI. The implications that Bradley sees in DEI statements is that they work on secular presuppositions about reality rather than Christian ones. They work on assumption that our institutions are solely to blame for any economic and power disparities we see in society whereas religiously conservative American Christianity heavily stresses individual responsibility for personal failures. Such scapegoating would excuse any individual from responsibility for their plight as well as defend the institutions as they once were. And so it seems that Bradley might be approaching DEI statements from a colorblind approach to racism that was embraced by the Reagan Administration and promoted by people like Thomas Sowell.
Certainly there are progressives who see the different economic and social disparities as being the fault of our institutions and society. Kimberlé Crenshaw who writes from a Critical Race Theory (CRT) perspective seems to be saying that as she has argued against the colorblind approach and for 'equality as a result.' And lest anyone believe that equality as results is owned solely by progressives, Martin Luther King Jr. argued for equality as results in his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur (click here for the interview). For in that interview, King spoke of his earlier work, which included getting the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 passed, as a struggle for dignity. And now, he was then engaged in a struggle for 'genuine equality' which was concluded from the then current economic disparity between the races.
King's interview puts Bradley's views on conservatism vs progressivism in a dilemma. That is because either King's later struggle indicated that he would be considered a progressive by Bradley's standards, or that conservatives can agree with progressives on some social positions for different reasons.
Perhaps Bradley's problem is in that he seems to view progressives as scapegoating institutions for today's problems. But can progressives see no individual responsibility in today's social problems. Consider the following definition of racism that is attributed to CRT: Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power (click here for the source). And though that same source goes on to define racism in terms of systems as well, this first definition that includes race prejudice shows that the individual also plays a role in racial prejudice. It isn't just the fault of society and our institutions.
One might also ask conservatives if they cannot sign on to DEI statements, is there something about conservatism that opposes significant parts of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
A related issue to DEI statements is how they apply to the LGBT community. Though Bradley does not mention the LGBT community in his article, there are conservatives who would object to signing on to DEI statements because such would be seen as support homosexuality and transgenderism. Such conservatives do not want the LGBT community to enjoy equality in society. Rather, through social and/or institutional power, they want those in the LGBT community to be marginalized in society lest their way of life is seen as normal. But again, Bradley does not include the LGBT community in this article so, as far as the article is concerned, we don't know if equality for the LGBT community plays a role in his thinking here.
Though religion is presented as an issue, the sharp divide between conservatism and progressivism in Bradley's article makes it seem like he is, in part, giving a tribal response. That is seen in the opposition of making DEI statements. Such statements would, according to Bradley, imply agreement with the progressive assumptions behind progressivism's promotion of DEI. It makes one wonder why Bradley couldn't agree with at least most of the DEI statements for different reasons. And if he couldn't agree with a commitment to DEI as a conservative, then what is it in conservatism that would prohibit them from supporting DEI at our universities?
Bradley was clear in saying that assent to the DEI statements would imply that one agrees with progressivism's blaming of institutions for disparity problems. And the question is not whether progressivism's assumptions are right or wrong there, but there is some degree of truth regarding the presence in our institutions. But it seems that Bradley was thinking in terms of progressivism as being either right or wrong.
Despite all of that, there is a religious concern on Bradley's part. He legitimately expresses the loss of the influence of Christianity on some of our educational institutions. And here Bradley is understandably reacting as a Christian. But with the percentages of unbelieving students at many of our universities, why does it seem that the loss of that Christian impetus in our universities is not understandable here?
For me, the irony in reading this response by Bradley is that I really didn't begin to understand what white privilege is until I heard him talk about it in a video presentation on racism. So it confuses me to read his article that seems to exhibit an all-or-nothing view of DEI statements.
So it seems to me that much of Bradley's response here is simply a rejection to the changing times. Though that is a simple statement, being able to adapt to unwanted changes is one of our most difficult tasks in life. And so perhaps one way to adapt to unwanted changes is to find some partial agreement or good in those changes even if one agrees with those changes for different reasons than the reasons why those who are promoting those changes want those changes.
