The news broke recently that the fire chief for the city of Atlanta has been fired. Surely someone in such a position would only stand to be fired for a few reasons — gross incompetence, legal troubles, getting on the wrong side of a political battle, a sufficiently embarrassing moral failure, and maybe one or two more. But Kevin Cochran was not fired for any of those reasons. In fact, in announcing the firing Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed noted the respect he has for Cochran’s service. No, Cochran was fired for writing, publishing, and distributing to three (that’s 3) employees whom he knew to be Christians a book entitled Who Told You that You Were Naked? in which he refers to homosexual acts as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”
Let’s just make sure we have the facts straight here. Cochran has spent his entire career as a firefighter. He committed himself to this path when he was a young boy living with his family in poverty in Shreveport, La. He accomplished his goal, served admirably, and was eventually appointed fire chief for the city of Shreveport. From there, in 2008, he was hired as the fire chief for the city of Atlanta. He briefly stepped down from this position in 2009 when he was called to serve as the fire administrator for the United States Fire Administration under President Obama. When he left this position in 2010, he was quickly rehired by Atlanta to serve in his previous position. His record has been exemplary and his service dedicated. By all accounts he was doing a great job overseeing the fire administration for the city. He was fired because he expressed his personal views stemming from his religious convictions (he’s a member of a Southern Baptist church in Atlanta, a city with a large population of evangelical Christians) that homosexuality is morally impermissible.
Making matters even clearer and more disturbing was a recent opinion piece from the editorial board of the New York Times in which they argue that his beliefs regarding homosexuality render him unfit for his position regardless of the fact that there is no evidence he ever mistreated a gay or lesbian member of the Atlanta fire department. That statement should absolutely stun any clear thinking reader. His personal belief which is fully consistent with his faith tradition on the issue of homosexuality is enough to warrant his being fired.
What the New York Times editorial board is essentially arguing is that the vast majority of evangelical Christians, Catholic Christians (even the Pope himself), Muslims, conservative Jews, along with consistent followers of the Dalai Lama, and most of the Mormons in the country are unfit for such a position. Talk about creating a religious test for public office! This is simply astounding and the implications of such an argument should be deeply disturbing to all of us. If a belief shared by nearly all Christians for 2,000 years about homosexuality makes one unfit for this public office, what other beliefs might also fall under similar scrutiny?
If you’re keeping score, in 2013 we learned that preaching a sermon nearly two decades ago in which you express your belief that homosexuality is immoral disqualifies you from praying at a Presidential inaugural ceremony even though that wasn’t the case in 2008; last year we learned that operating a business connected to the wedding industry (florist, baker, photographer, location owner, etc.) in such a way that you do not actively support or celebrate gay weddings is not legal even in states in which gay marriage itself is not legal; we learned from a state and the U.S. Supreme Court that being forced to support and celebrate gay marriage in spite of religious objections to the contrary is the cost of citizenship in this great nation and that only on the basis of some kind of animus could someone actually oppose gay marriage; we learned that financially supporting traditional marriage makes you unfit to serve as the CEO of an Internet company; we learned that a major city can subpoena the sermons of local pastors in order to screen them for supposed anti-gay sentiments even if they don’t have the courage to follow through on such efforts when they become politically unpopular; and we learned that requesting an exemption for a private, Christian college from federal gay rights laws can render an entire college unfit to serve the poor residents of a particular neighborhood. In a nutshell, over the past two years we have learned that where sexual liberty comes up against religious liberty, sexual liberty wins in almost every occasion.
You would think the message would have been heard loudly enough that people would stop trying to violate the new orthodoxy, but apparently some like Chief Cochran are slow learners. And so this year we had to be taught again. This year we have already learned that it is now not okay for a public employee to voice an opinion that homosexuality is immoral and share that opinion with coworkers who believe — at least on the essentials — like he does. I wonder what other lessons we have yet to learn this year. Perhaps the biggest will come in June should the U.S. Supreme Court take up one of the many appeals by states whose voter-approved traditional marriage amendments have been overturned by a lower court.
What all of this is slowly forcing us as a nation to do is to answer a question whose import is growing more significant by the day. The question is this: Is it morally permissible to publicly oppose homosexuality? Perhaps to put that another way: is it ethical to publicly oppose homosexuality? Again, the importance of this question cannot be overstated. The fact is, a sizable percentage of the country still believes homosexuality to be morally questionable and that gay marriage should not be legal. Should they be able to express these views without fear of reprisal? The answer from homosexual activists is a resounding no, that sexual freedom should trump all other freedoms including first freedoms. But are they right? Is there still room for conversation and charitable debate on this matter? How strong should our freedoms of religion and speech really be? How far should they extend?
These questions are relevant in the culture at large, but they are perhaps even more relevant within the confines of the church. Jesus followers in this nation cover the spectrum on this issue from Albert Mohler to Matthew Vines. Given the direction of the culture on this issue, are believers who are supportive of it (those whom David Gushee calls “revisionists”) willing to defend the right of traditionalists to publicly oppose it? Are they willing to stand up for their brothers and sisters on the opposite end of the spectrum who have sought to live in a manner consistent with their confession and been penalized for it? Or will they buy into the false notion that it is possible — and in this case praiseworthy — to separate private belief and public behavior? Will affirming churches support the rights of those churches who are not when the state comes to say that even opposition within the walls of the church is illegal, particularly on the matter of marriage? The trajectory of the last few years should leave us harboring no illusions that the non-affirming church will be exempted from laws calling for all people to embrace the new reality. What kind of support will they find from affirming brothers and sisters in that day?
The year may be new, but the lessons being taught are old. If we are slow to learn, though, perhaps the reason is that we are being taught to believe something that goes against deeply held convictions about the nature of people, of sexuality, and of family. We are being called to transgress deeply held understandings of what the Scriptures proclaim. Chief Cochran has lost his public service job over this. Who will be the next to lose because he refused to learn his lesson?