Protection or Exploitation?

interview by Dave Baker

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove is a pastor, writer and activist. He and his wife, Leah, founded The Rutba House, a Monastic community in Durham, NC. This interview addresses how Christians might respond to a recent law passed in that state legislating that people use the public restroom that corresponds with their biological gender. This bill is considered by many to be a direct attack on the rights of transgender people.

North Carolina recently passed a controversial law that has been dubbed "the bathroom bill." What do you think of this bill, and how are you reacting to it?

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove: Thanks for asking. The biggest danger of this bill is that it was designed to make the religious community think we know what it's about without asking.

The timing of this bill is important. It was passed in one day during an "emergency" session, because our General Assembly's leadership wanted to draw attention to their effort to, as they said it, "protect women and children." But this bill is not about protecting anything besides political power. It's a strategic effort to rally the "conservative" base in an election year when poor and working people have plenty of good reason to vote out the so-called conservatives who've failed to serve the general welfare.

So I've protested and spoken against it as an evangelical preacher in this state who's offended by the ways politicians are trying to exploit religious conviction to win votes.

Many defenders of the bathroom bill have been framing it as a freedom of religion issue. What do you make of that claim? What fears and passions do you see driving the supporters and opponents of the bill?

JWH: If you read the bill, it's clear that it's not about bathroom safety. It pretends to protect vulnerable citizens from sexual assault by saying that people can only use public restrooms that correspond with the gender on their birth certificates. But there is no evidence of transgender people committing assault in restrooms. And if there were, we already have laws protecting all citizens against assault.

What we do not have, unfortunately, is a way of protecting citizens from our representatives, who seem to know their days are numbered. They created a "crisis" in order to push through measures that reduce the rights of workers and the capacity of local municipalities to guarantee protection to workers in their city. So it turns out that it's not a bathroom bill at all. It's an anti-labor bill. And in this case, it's so anti-labor that it's bad for business, which is why hundreds of corporations have decided to petition our legislature and boycott our state until the law is changed.

Karl Barth used to tell his seminary students to do their sermon preparation with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in another. What do you think pastors should tell their congregations on this matter?

JWH: We have a responsibility to make clear the distinction between what the Bible and our tradition teaches about our sexual practice as a Christian community and what it teaches about how we pursue justice in the public square. Every pastor has a responsibility in their own tradition to teach the Scriptures to their congregation, navigating the deeply personal pastoral issues around sexuality. Clearly, Christians have discerned various faithful ways to do that. But legislating discrimination and codifying hate is not the way of Jesus. We must not let our religious conviction be exploited for political power. However conservative our sexual mores, we must be equally committed to conserving the "weightier matters of the law"—love, justice and mercy in the public square.

Dave Baker works at Baker Book House where he is responsible for school accounts and diversity initiatives. 

Worth reading: "Beauty Policing: The Consequences of Transgender Bathroom Politics" and "Cock-blocking for Jesus: A Modest Proposal for Christian Men Who are Concerned About Trans Bathroom Rights," both by Melinda Selmys

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You May Also Want to Read

Comment policy: ESA represents a wide variety of understandings and practices surrounding our shared Christian faith. The purpose of the ESA blog is to facilitate loving conversation; please know that individual authors do not speak for ESA as a whole. Even if you don\'t see yourself or your experience reflected in something you read here, we invite you to experience it anyway, and see if God can meet you there. What can take away from considering this point of view? What might you add? The comments section below is where you can share the answers to those questions, if you feel so moved. Please express your thoughts in ways that are constructive, purposeful, and respectful. Give those you disagree with the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are neither idiots nor evil. Name-calling, sweeping condemnations, and any other comments that suggest you have forgotten that we are all children of God will be deleted. Thank you!

3 Responses

  1. Cynthia says:

    Calling this so-called "Bathroom Bill" an "Anti-Labor Bill" is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

  2. Mary says:

    When a gender-dysphoric boy demands to use the girls' facilities, he is at once acknowledging the importance of privacy and modesty, which derive from physical embodiment (i.e., maleness or femaleness), and at the same time and incoherently denying the importance of privacy and modesty for the girls whose privacy he seeks to invade.—Laurie Higgins

  3. Guy Coe says:

    This is one of those issues which is falsely portrayed as polarized between two irreconcilably contradictory approaches. "Separate, but equal" in the old American south was an approach without a sustainable reason, when it came to drinking fountains and virtually every other facet it was used to justify racial segregation. But when it comes to commonsense concerns about sexual propriety in locker rooms and showers, the position that segregation by presenting genitalia IS sustainable –if for no other reason than guarding developmental norms –is not a position based upon fear, rejection or hatred. Neither is the position which recognizes that there is no necessary danger of voyeurism, prurience or assault from truly transgendered people themselves, but without any good means to vet the assertion of being truly transgendered on the spot, the door remains "wide open" for those who WOULD so use this weakness in the approach to carry out just these kinds of victimization — which both transgendered and "straight" people rightly oppose. The question becomes, then, what is the "least restrictive means" for carrying out such goals, respectfully, and balancing the rights of all? From my experience, truly transgendered people are NOT clamoring for a right to access shower and locker rooms along with others of the gender with which they identify, because it's next to impossible to be discreet in those circumstances; bathrooms much less so, however. The obvious commonsense approach is to make single-user or family-style separate small locker and shower rooms available (I care for a physically mature yet developmentally disabled daughter, as her dad, so I appreciate these when they're available) in gyms, public schools, retail stores, etc. to a degree proportionate to reasonable public demand. Having some separate, single user or multi-user shower and locker rooms available is a perfectly reasonable alternative to two unnecessarily polarized, by virtue of being too simplistic, approaches to this issue. I must totally disagree with the author's position that opposition to transgender access is only a ruse to exploit "religious values" for political ends. As if ONLY religious values were what is at stake here. Find the "win-win" for as many as you can. My two cents, anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.