Goodbye SCP (Updated)

It has been two weeks or so since the controversy over Richard Swinburne and the Society of Christian Philosophers (SCP) erupted.  I’ve got nothing to add to what I and many others have already said, except this: I will not be renewing my membership in the SCP.  I quit.  Goodbye.  Other SCP members will have to make up their own minds about how best to react to the situation, but I would encourage them to leave as well.  In my judgment, the SCP no longer deserves the financial and moral support of Christian philosophers.

It seems clear to me both from the public debate on the controversy and from what I know from “behind the scenes” that neither the President of the SCP, Michael Rea, nor the Executive Director, Christina Van Dyke, has any intention of making any public statement either apologizing to Swinburne or in any other meaningful way addressing the concerns of Swinburne’s defenders.

Rea created this controversy when he issued his statement officially distancing the SCP from Swinburne’s talk defending traditional Christian sexual morality (a talk the organization had invited Swinburne to give and the content of which the conference organizers cannot have been surprised by).  As I argued in my original post on the controversy:

Given current cultural circumstances, Rea’s statement amounts to what philosophers call a Gricean implicature – it “sends a message,” as it were -- to the effect that the SCP agrees that views like Swinburne’s really are disreputable and deserving of special censure, something to be quarantined and set apart from the ideas and arguments that respectable philosophers, including Christian philosophers, should normally be discussing. 

The only thing that can cancel this implicature is an equally forceful and unambiguous statement from Rea apologizing for any disrespect shown to Swinburne and affirming that the SCP welcomes the contributions of philosophers who defend traditional Christian sexual morality no less than the contributions of those who are critical of it.

Yet not only have Rea and Van Dyke failed to cancel the implicature, they have reinforced the implicature.

First, as Lydia McGrew has pointed out, Van Dyke reinforced it in the very act of denying that any such implicature was intended.  In a Facebook remark on the controversy, Van Dyke claimed that “no one is trying to take free speech or the open expression of ideas away from anyone” but then immediately went on to assert that views like Swinburne’s “have caused incalculable harm to vast numbers of already disadvantaged people” and that “having someone in a position of power [like Swinburne] advocate that position furthers that harm.” 

Now, no one ever claimed in the first place that the SCP intends explicitly to forbid views like Swinburne’s from being expressed at its meetings.  That is a red herring.  What Swinburne’s defenders are concerned about is rather that the SCP leadership’s remarks provide aid and comfort to those who would like to shut down reasoned debate about traditional sexual morality via intimidation, by demonizing all those who uphold it as “bigots,” promoters of “hate,” etc.  (See my original post on the controversy for discussion of the nature and manifestations of this political tactic and its utter incompatibility with a genuinely philosophical approach to these matters.) 

When Van Dyke asserts matter-of-factly that the very expression of views like Swinburne’s “cause[s] incalculable harm to vast numbers of already disadvantaged people” etc., this quite obviously reinforces, rather than cancels, the message that views like Swinburne’s are especially disreputable, etc., and it thus discourages philosophers (especially young and untenured scholars) from even considering defending such views, lest they be lumped in with the “haters” and “bigots” and damage their careers.

Second, as I reported over a week ago, Van Dyke made a public show of support for Prof. Jason Stanley when he faced criticism for the juvenile, hateful, obscene and offensive remarks he made about Swinburne and his defenders.  Stanley, the reader will recall, had responded to Swinburne and his defenders with the words “F**k those a***oles,” labeled them “proponents of evil,” and compared them to Nazis and other mass murderers.  Clearly, for an SCP official to express support for such remarks once again reinforces the implicature to the effect that views like Swinburne’s are especially disreputable, not the sort of thing a respectable philosopher would defend, etc.

Third, Lydia McGrew has reported that Rea made a public show of support for Prof. Rebecca Kukla when she faced criticism for the juvenile, hateful, offensive, and even more obscene remarks she made about Swinburne and his defenders.  Kukla, the reader will recall, had said of Swinburne and his defenders: “Those douche tankards can suck my giant queer c**k.”

But for Swinburne… not a peep from Rea and Van Dyke.  The petition to these SCP leaders from their fellow Christian philosophers, respectfully asking for an apology to Swinburne?  No public response at all.

Even Jason Stanley has now publicly apologized to Swinburne for his remarks.  But from Michael Rea, silence.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that either the leaders of the SCP sympathize with those who would like to marginalize philosophers who defend traditional Christian sexual morality, or they do not sympathize with them, but nevertheless lack the courage to face the backlash they would get from these marginalizers if they publicly apologized to Swinburne. 

Either way, the message this sends to Christian philosophers who would defend traditional Christian sexual morality is this:  “We don’t have your back.  We prefer to acquiesce in the demonization you increasingly face from the wider culture.”

So, goodbye SCP.  You did much good at one time, but now it seems you are the latest confirmation of Neuhaus’s Law.

UPDATE: I have been an SCP member for years, and have assumed that I am currently a member since I am still receiving the society’s journal Faith and Philosophy.  (I had the latest issue here on my desk as I wrote the post.)  But Mike Rea informs me via email that according to his records I am in arrears with my dues.  So he does not consider me to be a member any longer anyway.  I have told Mike to feel free to correct things at his end and cancel my subscription.  It’s a good journal, but naturally I don’t expect them to keep sending it to me if I am no longer a dues-paying member.