Franz Becker

The End of White Christian America

Opposition to gay rights has long been a pillar of the identity of White Christian America.
The Christian right has made it a cornerstone of their movement to stand in staunch opposition to
gay and lesbian rights. Robert Jones lays out his belief that the battle over gay rights was
instrumental in the rise and decline of the evangelical movement. Going into the history of the
battle, he highlights how being opposed to gay rights helped the Christian right gain momentum
and build up strong political power. Yet, in an ironic twist, the staunch opposition to gay
marriage which helped the movement rise to political prominence, also lead to its demise, taking
much of the power of White Christian America with it.
The White Christian establishment in America has been very successful enacting
legislation that restricted gay rights. Early on in his book Jones makes an important distinction
about White Christian America: It is separated into two main branches. In the Northeast and
upper midwest it has its mainline protestant branch and in the south it has its evangelical
protestant branch (Pg 3). While prior to 1962, every state had laws banning the act of soddomy,
the Christian right, which is associated more with the evangelical branch of White Christian
America, was instrumental in the passage of laws which interfered in the lives of homosexuals
outside the bedroom. The rise of the Christian right can trace much of its prominence to its
staunch opposition to gay rights. Indeed, Robert Jones contends that evangelical leaders staked
much of their communal identity on the issue which payed off in the early success of the
evangelical movement (Pg 116). The movement was successful in capitalizing on public
opposition and using it to shape public policy. The enactment of such legislation at the height of
the Cold War came to be known as the “Lavender Scare.” Examples include President
Eisenhower’s executive order in 1953 which prevented anyone who engaged in “Sexual
perversion” from having a job in the federal government. Over the next two decades, the FBI
conducted a purge of gay employees that saw thousands of people lose their jobs (117). While
such laws did not exist in such a blanket way in the private sector, there were no protections in
place to prevent such a firing from occurring.
Jones highlights a battle which started in the 1970s between gay rights activists and the
Christian right, specifically southern christian conservatives. Gays rights activists sought to pass
laws which banned sexual discrimination in the workplace and in housing. At the time it seemed
ambitious and far fetched, but what ensued was a revolution of ideas regarding sexual morality
and the place of the church in making decisions about the bedroom. With the mobilization of gay
rights activists across the country, municipalities began to pass local ordinances which banned
sexual discrimination. This awakened a giant political movement within the Christian right
which sought to block and overturn such laws. One leader of the evangelical movement was
Anita Bryant, the Florida beauty queen and orange juice spokeswoman, turned crusader against
the gay rights movement (111-114). She became one of the christian right's biggest icons and
helped overturn the ban on discrimination in Miami before taking her case to the rest of the
country. Jones details how such action continued into the 1980s and 1990s. Bryant’s
organization “Save the Children” and many others like it, sought to capitalize on the fears and
misunderstandings that many Americans had about gay men by spreading falsehoods about the
gay community such as gay men were child molesters and gays sought to “Recruit” young boys
to their cause (117). The battle between activists continued through the aids epidemic, where
those on the Christian right sought to, and succeeded in exploiting it for their advantage. In fact
over one in three Americans polled believed that the aids epidemic might be God’s punishment
for immoral sexual behavior (119). Opposition to gay rights increased even more after two
events in 1993: Bill Clinton’s signing of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which banned the
discrimination of closeted homosexuals in the military and the Hawaii State Supreme Court
decision which found the denial of marriage licenses to gay couples to be in violation of the
state’s Constitution. Staunch opposition to these events caulminacted with the passage of the
Defense of Marriage Act, a law which defined marriage as a union between one man and one
woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-marriages granted in other states. While
the passage of the act was a major achievement for White Christian America, it could not stop
the growing acceptance for gay rights within the American public.
Jones argues that no issue captures White Christian America’s loss of cultural power than
the rapid rise in public support for gay marriage (120). In 1998, only eleven percent of
Americans supported the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. By 2014, fifty-four
percent of Americans favored legalization of gay marriage (fg 4.1, 123). In 2003, nearly sixty-
seven percent of Protestants and Mormons said they were against the legalization of gay
marriage. According to Jones, young Americans in particular were turned away by religious
groups messages of anti-gay rhetoric, causing millennials to cite it as one of the major reasons
they left the church they were raised in. By playing its hand too much on the gay rights issue, it
has driven young people away from the church. A 2006 survey conducted among 16 to 29 year
olds found that ninety-one percent of them held the biggest attribution associated with modern
day Christianity was being anti gay(131).
Jones lays out a clear pattern throughout the book as a central theme to White Christian
America as a whole, that is whenever White Christian America feels they are threatened they do
everything in their power to protect what they are losing. From accepting Catholics as members
of society to the changing role of women in the home and the ordination of gay and female
ministers, White Christian America has been slow to change (61, 187). It is, by its very nature,
conservative. Yet, it is that very conservative nature that is leading to its decline. Jones gives
three options that the Church has for the road ahead. The first is that churches can be accepting
of the LGBT community and welcome them into the church. Few denominations have turned to
this route,with the notable exception of the American Baptist Churches. The next option Jones
lays out is making a last stand, in which churches stick to their guns and refuse to compromise
on their doctrine of exclusion and opposition to the LGBT community. Finally, Jones offers an a
conditional surrender as the final option for the Church. The church can take realistic approaches
or stop fighting on the issue. They would not have to relinquish their beliefs, but could stop
being defenders of a lost cause (134-142).
The argument put forth by Jones’ makes sense in that the history of the United States has
seen a continual, gradual acceptance of gays, against the church's wishes. In 1779, Thomas
Jefferson proposed a law to the Virginia House of Delegates which made castration the
punishment for gay men. While harsh by today’s standards it sought to lessen the penalty from
death, but the law was rejected. While the United States has come a long way since capital
punishment for sodomy, Jones highlights an even deeper importance that the role of gay rights
played in the rise and fall of the Christian right and ultimately the decline of White Christian
America. The Christian right had a massive organization which they were able to use and
mobilize to oppose legislation they felt benefited their cause. I’m skeptical of how much weight
Jones gives to the power of opposition to gay rights in the rise of the Christian right. White
Christian America was incredibly powerful to begin with. They swayed elections and determined
much of the public policy in the country. In 1974, over two thirds of Americans were white
protestants, compared with less than half of Americans in 2014 (51-52). When people did go to
Church in the 1970s, zealots like Anita Bryant had influence they could exert on the American
public, but now it simply doesn’t carry the same weight. I think this was an issue he should of
touched on more:The correlation of who is going to church and who supports gay rights. When
the church had power, it was able to exert that power on its members, but once they left they
were no longer able to do so. I agree with Jones when he seems to contend that there is a very
direct causation between the decline in White Christian America and public opinion regarding
gay rights. While many factors have contributed to the decline in church membership among
young Americans such as a more secular society, less belief in God, and other controversial
doctrine, the battle for gay rights is symbolic of a changing moral belief system in the United
States. Jones opens his discussion on gay rights with the Grammy performance of Macklemore’s
“Same Love.” The second verse of which says “When I was in church, they taught me something
else If you preach hate at the service Those words aren't anointed And that Holy Water, that you
soak in is then poisoned” (112). I have to agree with Jones on this point. The decline of White
Christian America can be traced to the Church's position on controversial doctrine. Young
people do not want to be associated with hatred against people they know.
The road ahead for churches is a difficult one. The stats don’t lie: White Christian
America is hemorrhaging membership and losing its control of influence, there is no doubt in my
mind that it is dying. Jones gives three options for the Church on the road ahead in the form of a
last stand where they do not conform, accepting gays rights as a part of their doctrine, or making
a conditional surrender where they conform in some ways, but not in others. I think there is only
one path forward for the Church. The church has always had a problem with accepting change,
from the role of women in the home and female clergy, to the idea of sex outside of marriage,
they are used to being on the losing side of cultural debates, but in the past they have adopted.
They’ve already lost the debate and because they are hemorrhaging membership due to their
refusal to compromise on the issue, they have no choice but to accept the changing culture in
America or face a total end to their influence and in time, their institutions.
The battle for acceptance of gay rights by White Christian America has been long and
tumultuous. While staunch opposition to gay rights allowed for the rise of the Christian right into
one of the most powerful political bases in the country, it would also play a critical role in the
decline of White Christian America. Robert Jones highlights this by showing how early
opposition to gay rights and legislation protecting homosexuals was successfull, but because of
the Church's hardline approach to dealing with gays rights and the changing moral beliefs of the
American public, it ended up being a critical reason for the large membership declines seen in
the last two decades. Jones gives three paths the Church can take going forward: Acceptance, a
last stand, and a conditional surrender. Jones is right in that gay rights made and broke the
evangelical movement in America. It's clear to see that the Church has to change if it wants
survival. Gay rights is not a hill White Christian America needs to die on. If they change their
way now by becoming more inclusive and less judgmental, they can survive into this century,
but one thing is perfectly clear: they will never control the same sphere of influence they enjoyed
before the new millennium.