LGBTI Suicide And Institutionalized Evangelical Christian Culture
An institution comes as a formalized system of rules, of structure, guiding and hierarchically ordering the people contained within it. Christian mythology orients itself on the teachings, life, and personhood of Christ.
Insofar as these become functionally instituted and realized, modern political religion can be seen with the formulation of Evangelical Christianity. A recent development with precedence in the history of the Christian religion and in the history of religion.
Something of a political tool in order to bring out policy and reform in the favor of the religious who identify as Christian and against others who identify as another religion or who may identify as non-religious.
Where I live, there’s Trinity Western University in which the individuals who adhere to political Christianity have become truly institutionalized. They have both a “Community Covenant” and a “Statement of Faith.”
It’s a strange notion to try to have an academic institution, where an “academic” institution should remain bound to the open boundaries of the free inquiry mandate of academic or intellectual life while having a constrained account as to what implies an academically free life.
If we take some of the ideas of freedom vis-à-vis academic free inquiry of ideas, then even the notion of a restriction of free inquiry becomes an assault on the very foundations of an academic tradition spanning centuries.
Yet, at the same time, we come to the fact of the Evangelical Christian tradition imposing ideological constraints on that which can be thought and the manner in which those thoughts may be expressed within the context of community.
In this manner, any religious institution cannot embody the most important facet of higher learning emergent in the formulation of a fully critical mind rather than a constrained critical mind; constrained by the fact of religious dogma, this dogma restricted to the formulation of critical thought with the end result of the favorable consideration of the dogmas of the Christian religion, so as to denude the possibility of a truly critical mind.
This is the infection of faith in academic life and it remains a stain since its continued entrenchment in the hallowed halls of academe. It comes to community life too, this poison. LGBTI members of the community, who I have known, and will not claim status as one or not, personally, have been exclusively demonized in the theology of the institutions.
They have come from families in which the Christian religion is a tool of oppression, hate, and transcendent self-loathing for these individuals. Nothing is wrong with them; everything is wrong with the theology towards these individuals.
An imperious and petulant formulation of the theology as a political and social tool to crush dissent with minorities as a prime target, including the LGBTI community. Individuals who are bullied, harassed, rejected from the community, and made inherently by their nature part of the result of a sin-ridden world, will more likely self-harm or kill themselves.
This is not due to the Devil, to demons, to spiritual forces as in a spiritual battle, and the like. This is, by and large, due to the manner in which religious ideology continues to influence popular discourse to the detriment of vulnerable members of our communities and families.
The Evangelical communities before us have, generally, done a terrible job and performed a terrible disservice to the LGBTI communities. These youth, undergraduates and the like, are more likely to self-harm and commit suicide due to these violent ideologies – aggression against the self.
So, I implore: Why is this the case? Why does this have to happen? What makes these communities so holy when they commit such sins in the sight of God Himself so as to create an environment so toxic to their youth as to make them want to harm themselves, even kill themselves?
What is justice in this injustice? What is compassion in this dispassion towards the least among you? Where is the sense of commitment to the care and concern and love for those who should be image-bearers of God Himself?
This Community Covenant and Statement of Faith make clear; your nature, as LGBTI peoples, goes against the values and standards of this community of Christ. Institutionalized Evangelical Christianity remains an integral terror on the hearts of the young and, in fact, a burden on our social and medical systems due to the mental health anguish delivered to their young, our country’s wider young.
It is despicable and should not only not even be on the books; it can be said to be anti-biblical, as the covenants set forth by their God should suffice, “No?” It would seem to stipulate that God requires help from the mortal and, thus, proclaiming some usurpation of the rights and powers of God, as if a human institution knows better than God Himself.
In this, it’s quite clear. It’s not only another covenant. It becomes a form of blasphemy in violation of the revelations and powers of God. Why the need to constrict the free choice of mortal beings, undergraduate students and graduate students, in so close a domain as the intimate, as love?
One would surmise the purposes as one of control in which the individuals who might stand up and speak out against these absurd practices would be shut down by the institution as a whole, whether by a snitch culture through other students or via a culture lead by faculty, staff, and administration, who adhere to the letter of the law of the Community Covenant and the Statement of Faith.
In short, it turns legitimate religious or spiritual sentiments, turns them on their heads, and then makes an enforceable formulation of virtue and vice, as in an authoritarian formulation of the Christian faith, and institutionalized Evangelical Christianity.
LGBTI students, as evidence from Egale and others shows, are at higher risk of self-harm and suicide due to social stigma, discrimination, prejudice, and the like. Institutions with these kinds of cultures set a standard of harm to their student bases and should stop.
People are harmed; young people die.
Opinions and Perspectives
The mental health implications are staggering.
Change is possible but requires sustained effort.
The theological inconsistencies need more examination.
We need to keep having these difficult conversations.
The human cost of these policies is simply too high.
The article's call for institutional accountability is powerful.
These policies create impossible choices for many people.
The impact on academic research quality is significant.
We need more support for those challenging these systems from within.
The connection between institutional policy and personal trauma is clear.
These policies affect entire communities, not just students.
The article's focus on systemic change is crucial.
Academic freedom and religious constraints seem fundamentally incompatible.
The mental health crisis demands immediate action.
The theological arguments against these policies deserve more attention.
We need to support those working for change within these institutions.
The human cost of these policies extends far beyond campus boundaries.
Having worked in both types of institutions, the contrast is striking.
The article's emphasis on institutional responsibility is important.
These policies create a culture of fear rather than authentic faith.
The impact on academic integrity in these institutions is concerning.
We need more dialogue about reconciling faith and inclusion.
The author's theological critique is particularly effective.
The mental health statistics should be a wake-up call for these institutions.
I appreciate how the article connects individual suffering to systemic issues.
The institutional power dynamics described are sadly familiar to many of us.
Religious freedom shouldn't mean freedom to cause harm.
The focus on control rather than spiritual growth is a key insight.
Having counseled LGBTI youth from religious backgrounds, I can confirm the trauma these policies cause.
The article raises important questions about the role of religious institutions in modern society.
We need more research on the long-term effects of these policies on mental health.
The comparison to blasphemy is provocative but theologically sound.
Academic institutions should foster growth and discovery, not restriction and fear.
The article's focus on suicide rates is important but difficult to read. These are preventable deaths.
I've seen similar policies tear families apart. The human cost is immeasurable.
The contradiction between Christian love and institutional discrimination needs more attention.
These policies affect more than just LGBTI students. They impact the entire academic community.
The author's questions about justice and compassion are particularly powerful.
Having taught in both religious and secular institutions, the difference in academic freedom is stark.
The connection between institutional policy and suicide rates is clear and devastating.
Personal faith shouldn't require institutional control. That's what these policies really represent.
The article could have explored the economic factors that keep these institutions powerful.
As someone in student counseling, I see the damage these policies cause every day.
The theological argument about additional covenants is particularly strong. It challenges these institutions on their own terms.
Those who defend these policies often haven't seen their devastating effects firsthand.
The article makes me think about the responsibility of accrediting bodies in addressing these issues.
The impact on academic research in these institutions is significant. How can you study human sexuality with such restrictions?
I've worked with religious organizations moving towards inclusion. It's challenging but possible.
The mental health statistics cited are alarming. How many more young people need to suffer?
We need more support services specifically designed for LGBTI youth from religious backgrounds.
The article's focus on institutional power structures rather than individual beliefs is important.
My own journey from rejection to acceptance in faith communities shows change is possible.
The concept of academic freedom seems fundamentally incompatible with these restrictive policies.
I've seen religious institutions lose talented faculty because of these policies. It's a brain drain.
The culture of silence these policies create affects everyone, not just LGBTI students.
Working in healthcare, I see the long-term effects of religious trauma on LGBTI individuals. It's a serious public health issue.
The author's question about love for 'image-bearers of God' really highlights the theological inconsistency.
I think we need to acknowledge that some religious institutions are trying to change, even if progress is slow.
The social cost extends beyond just the students. Whole families are often torn apart by these ideologies.
Reading this reminds me of friends who left academia because they couldn't reconcile their faith with these institutional requirements.
The role of faculty in enforcing these policies is complex. Many struggle with their own ethical conflicts.
Living authentically shouldn't mean choosing between faith and identity. These institutions create an impossible choice.
The comparison to blasphemy is interesting. Aren't these institutions essentially saying God's covenant isn't enough?
The article could have explored more solutions. What specific changes could these institutions make?
Having experienced both accepting and rejecting religious communities, I can attest to the difference it makes in mental health.
The impact on mental health services in communities near these institutions is significant. It's a ripple effect.
I appreciate how the article connects institutional policies to broader social harm. These aren't just abstract rules.
We should be measuring these institutions by their fruits. Are they producing love and healing, or trauma and death?
The tension between institutional power and individual faith is a crucial point the article raises.
I work in student services and the number of LGBTI students struggling with religious trauma is heartbreaking.
The author's point about these policies being anti-biblical is fascinating. It really challenges the theological basis for institutional discrimination.
Some of the most compassionate people I know are religious folks who support LGBTI rights. We shouldn't paint all believers with the same brush.
The financial dependence many students have on these institutions makes it even harder to challenge these policies.
We need more dialogue between religious leaders and LGBTI advocates. Understanding can grow through respectful conversation.
The article makes me think about how many students suffer in silence, afraid to seek help or speak out.
This isn't just about individual choice. These institutions influence broader social attitudes that affect all LGBTI people.
The snitch culture mentioned in the article is real. I've experienced it firsthand and it creates such a toxic environment.
Academic institutions should prioritize truth-seeking over dogma. That's literally their purpose.
The mental health crisis in religious LGBTI youth is severely underreported. We need more research and support services.
I've seen positive changes in some religious institutions. It's possible to maintain faith traditions while being inclusive and supportive.
The theological argument about additional covenants being unnecessary is compelling. Why do institutions feel they need to add to God's word?
Someone close to me took their life because of similar circumstances. These aren't just statistics, they're real people with real families.
The article could have mentioned the growing movement of LGBTI-affirming religious communities. Change is happening, albeit slowly.
As a parent, I can't imagine choosing religious doctrine over my child's wellbeing. These institutions need to realize the real human cost of their policies.
The comparison between academic freedom and religious constraints really struck me. You can't claim to be a university while limiting intellectual exploration.
I wonder how many brilliant minds we've lost to suicide because of these oppressive institutional practices. It's heartbreaking to think about.
The article's analysis of institutional power structures is spot on. These policies are more about control than spiritual guidance.
We can't ignore the fact that many young people have found support and community in progressive religious spaces. Not all faith communities are harmful.
The medical costs of treating depression and suicide attempts in LGBTI youth from religious backgrounds is staggering. This is a public health issue too.
I studied at a similar institution and saw firsthand how these policies created a culture of fear and silence rather than authentic faith expression.
Has anyone else noticed how these policies often seem more focused on controlling behavior than fostering genuine spiritual growth?
The author makes a compelling point about these additional covenants essentially undermining the original biblical covenant. It's an interesting theological argument.
As someone who works in mental health, I can confirm the devastating effects of religious-based rejection on LGBTI youth. The trauma can last a lifetime.
The contradiction between academic freedom and religious constraints in these institutions is something I've struggled with professionally. It's a complex issue.
I think we need to distinguish between religious freedom and institutional discrimination. One can respect religious beliefs while still opposing harmful practices.
The article really resonates with my own experience growing up in an evangelical household. The mental health impact of feeling rejected by your faith community is profound.
You're missing the point entirely. These policies actively harm vulnerable young people, whether they choose to attend or not. The broader cultural impact affects everyone.
The point about the 'Community Covenant' essentially being a form of blasphemy is fascinating. I never thought about it from that theological perspective before.
I respectfully disagree. Religious institutions have the right to maintain their traditional values. Nobody is forced to attend these schools.
My heart breaks reading this. The suicide statistics for LGBTI youth in religious communities are absolutely devastating. We need to do better as a society.
While I understand the author's concerns, I think it's important to note that not all evangelical institutions operate this way. Some are making genuine efforts to be more inclusive while maintaining their faith traditions.
This is such a powerful article that highlights the devastating impact of institutional discrimination on LGBTI youth. I've personally witnessed friends struggle with similar experiences in religious settings.