The Federalist calls IVCF's decision to fire pro-marriage employees an "affirmation," and liberal response to the firings as an "uproar." Mentioning that "a group of former InterVarsity staff recently founded Incarnation Ministries, a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive campus ministry'" belies the claim made by some evangelicals that non-heterosexuality is opposed to Christianity. Also contentious is the declaration that "Sex belongs within marriage, and marriage is between a man and a woman" and the claim that "Upholding this position will come with a cost:"
Indeed, it already has. Hours after the Time article about InterVarsity appeared, I saw Facebook and Twitter posts calling for colleges to kick the group off campus. [...] To be frank, it seems odd that InterVarsity is suddenly a target of protest, derision, and attack. Yes, the organization could doubtless have done better in rolling out the Document on Human Sexuality.
It's not "rolling out" a position paper that's the issue, but firing people for their beliefs.
The anger of InterVarsity's critics is not just about the new policy. Yes, the Document on Human Sexuality and terminating dissenting employees contradicts the sexual libertinism of the twenty-first century West. [...] "This is why InterVarsity's Document on Human Sexuality is so threatening to the intellectual system of same-sex marriage defenders"
No, the document isn't threatening; the firings are the threat.
"perhaps it is evidence that the traditional understanding of marriage is not an arbitrary imposition of patriarchy, but a natural and inherent disposition of humankind."
Nope, not that either.
"By walking backwards [He admits it!] on the marriage question, InterVarsity has put the very intellectual framework of same-sex marriage supporters at stake."
That should win some sort of prize for overly grand pronouncements.
"The furor doesn't appear to show any sign of dying down"
Sorry, but you'll just have to live with the derision you've earned for kicking out former allies who understand sociology and sexuality. Will Christian groups develop anti-evolution positions to justify kicking out members who understand biology, or anti-Big-Bang positions so they can fire members who understand cosmology?
In the spirit of rising above such disagreements, S. Abbas Raza writes about tolerating the intolerable:"
I am writing this today to dissociate myself from the rage many of my friends have been expressing toward those who supported the "wrong" candidate in the recent presidential election in the US. I know that this will not make me popular with anyone; in fact, I am certain that at least some will take offence. But I still want to say some things I believe and which I don't see enough other people saying.
"What is tolerance," Raza asks, "if not the patience to accept that there may be some people whose views (formed by their own immediate cultural environments and their own experiences) deserve criticism by our standards but whom we do not give up on and regard as evil?"
Most leftists and liberals in the West generally correctly resist the temptation to paint whole societies in the developing world as backward and contemptible because their belief systems are at odds with the ethical norms of industrialised democracies. [...] But when it comes to the disadvantaged victims of a predatory capitalism in the US - the working class Americans whose economic conditions have been steadily worsening for more than four decades under every single administration - these progressives find it hard to show any real sympathy.
He concludes that, "we must keep in mind that the highest priority must be to help the working class out of its miserable state and reach a more equitable distribution of resources overall. There is no other way to address the US's increasingly dysfunctional state:"
This is going to require speaking to the half of the US that disagrees with us and convincing them to join us in bringing back and strengthening labour unions, pushing for more progressive taxation (the only real way to reshape the distribution of wealth in the long run), getting money out of politics and doing whatever else it takes. We might even learn something from such conversation.