The Age To Come

There is more than a slight irony after posting thoughts on identifying with and praying for your country, that I find myself unable to pray for my people.

It appears that abortion is alive and well in the UK, and so are human-animal hybrids, along with saviour siblings. And as for fathers, who needs them? Seems too, after a cursory glance at the forums, that most people see all this as good (admittedly this is a fully moderated forum on the Beeb, so hardly to be taken as a balanced view).

This is a country I feel ashamed of right now. Beset between the twin horns of Islamic and secular fundamentalism, it celebrates its destruction in a vile orgy of evil.

I find I have nothing more to say, and nothing to pray.

Now, this isn’t going to be a theological treatise – you you are probably quite glad of that! Rather, a collection of thoughts, hopefully not too random, that coalesced when I was talking to a friend the other night. Feel free to offer your own opinion.

Firstly, it’s not saying anything new that Western culture tends to be an individualistic one. Compared with other cultures, our sense of identity is much more wrapped up in self, and less in family, region, country etc. That does not mean we do not have those layers, but that often we do not recognise them for what they are.

As a result, I believe we are often blinded to our full identity – and as a result do not have a full picture of sin and judgment. What do I mean by that? Well, first, let’s look at identity. It seems to me that we all have multiple layers to what makes us ‘us’. First of all, there is us as individuals. Then there is us as part of a family. Then, perhaps, as part of a town or region. Then, a country. In addition to that there are many other facets that make up identity – workplace, clubs, social gatherings, as a part of a Church – and most importantly for the Christian a citizen of Heaven, part of God’s own family, grafted in though Jesus Christ. All these come together to form ‘us’ – to put it simply no one can be seen as an individual alone.

But I believe it is this cultural focus on the individual (now, there’s irony) that obscures this more full understanding of our identity, and – as I said – also blinds us to the full nature of sin and judgment. For, although we are tenuously aware of these extra layers, we are not aware enough to perceive the endemic sin that also resides in these layers, and more so that we are part of the problem. We may vaguely pray regarding the sins of our country. How much more would we pray if we understood that – as citizens of that country – we all partake together in that sin? That it is not something that can be vaguely put at somebody else’s door – it comes directly back to us.

Now, you may say we are citizens of Heaven. Just so. But we are in a strange place while we are yet here on this earth – something of a time between times – and just as ‘personal’ sin bedevils us at times, so does societal sin also. It is not somebody else’s sin, it is corporately ours.

Ultimately, understanding this requires a shift in thinking. But, if you can make that shift – it can also shift your understanding of judgment. So often when calamity hits a country, some folks will say ‘this was the judgment of God’. Now, that may or may not be true, but the reply often critiques the seemingly random nature of the casualties – utilising the ‘this person was good so why did it happen to them?’ argument. We often cannot wrap our minds around this. However, one you understand identity and sin as multi-layered, then judgments that impact a country (say), start to be seen in a different light. Not that this seeks to explain such things, but certainly it broadens our vista compared to our normal individualistic understanding.

Something of interest here, in light of the last post.

By Chris Kempling

April 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On the first day of the counselling psychology class, the instructor asked us to share what was the most important fact about ourselves. Jim (not his real name) identified himself as gay. I identified myself as a Christian. I decided to befriend him and we went through the two-year program together. I even stayed overnight at his house when we had a weekend seminar in his town.

Fast forward to the present. I encouraged my high school-aged son, a social leader, to befriend gay classmates, protect them if they were bullied and invite them over if he wished. He did (and was harassed for doing so). After graduation, his friend “Andy” moved away, but stayed overnight at our house on two occasions when back in town visiting.

I mention these anecdotes, because some people are convinced that I am “homophobic.” They believe this because I publicly express opinions consistent with socially conservative views of sexual behaviour. I have been suspended, without pay, twice from my job as a school teacher – once for one month, and once for three months. It was hard on my family. Yet I maintain that people can hold, and express such views but still treat those who practise different values with decency. I do, and so does my son.

The British Columbia College of Teachers won a court decision against me in 2006 for “conduct unbecoming a member.” The reason: Between 1997 and 2000, I wrote several letters to newspapers, outlining research data related to homosexual behaviour, and what position major world religions take on the matter. There was a vigorous exchange of views on the editorial pages of my local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer. I had thought that was the place where people are free to debate the issues of the day.

The College of Teachers, and my employer, the Quesnel School District, believe that my published opinions had the potential to “poison the atmosphere” in my school. I provided letters from five school administrators which said that my letters had no impact whatsoever on the school atmosphere, but they were ignored.

The college’s lawyer stated categorically that “everything you have written, in its entirety, is derogatory and discriminatory.” I continue to find that a bewildering statement, because I was quoting peer-reviewed research data, including research done by investigators who are homosexual themselves. Furthermore, I have never had a human rights complaint laid against me.

In fact, all sides agreed that there was no negative impact in my school. No parent, student or homosexual person complained to the college or my employer about my letters. I never raised the issue in my classroom or with students with whom I worked. I have even received two letters of commendation from my principals for my work with sexual minority students. Nevertheless, the courts ruled that no “evidence of harm” is required to discipline a member. Having wrong opinions is sufficient reason to deny a worker his paycheque for four months.

One would think that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association might be concerned about this attack on free speech. On the contrary, they were granted leave to intervene against me on the side of the College of Teachers.

On Jan. 28 of this year, the college issued a new citation of “conduct unbecoming,” with 12 new offenses for items written between 2003 and 2005. Once again, no evidence of “harm” was alleged, and in fact, there isn’t even a complainant.

My offenses include signing two letters to the editor as “the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party.” This is true. I did run as a candidate in the last federal election for the CHP, and came in fifth out of eight candidates. I wrote the letters in question, after the national leader of the CHP asked me to be the candidate. In my role as CHP spokesperson for my riding, I outlined the party’s position on the nationally debated issue of same-sex marriage. If a teacher can be sanctioned for letting the public know what his party’s position is on matters of national debate, does this not make Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom meaningless?

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, writing in the Figueroa decision stated: “Section 3 should be understood with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process …Full political debate ensures an open society benefiting from diverse opinions … Marginal or regional parties tend to raise issues not adopted by national parties.”

The possibility that a political candidate may be sanctioned for representing his political party is alarming to say the least. I think citizens of a free democracy need to be able to join and speak for the party of their choice, notwithstanding their occupation.

I have also been censured for writing an essay on the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives, and for discussing the therapy services of my private Christian counselling practice, in a CBC radio interview.

Frankly, I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.

I refuse to be marginalized as a second-class citizen, simply because I publicly state social conservative opinions or represent a “fringe” political party. And I don’t think publicly espousing the Christian worldview should be prohibited for public school teachers. If I don’t have free speech, or freedom of political association, then no Canadian does.

I thought you might find this case illuminating as to the continued use of ‘tolerance’ to be intolerant, of using ‘anti-discrimination’ laws to discriminate, of using ‘diversity’ to marginalise public out-workings of Christianity in Canada.

Much as we saw with the enforced withdrawing of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK, ideological purity and anti-Christian sentiment is far more important than the genuine good that these agencies are / were doing within society.

From here.

In what is being described as “another blow to religious liberty” in Canada, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a Christian organization to cease using an employment contract which has staff promise they will not engage in “homosexual relationships.” Moreover, the ruling demands that the organization pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and was subsequently dismissed.

In an April 15 ruling, released today, the Tribunal ruled against Christian Horizons, an Evangelical Christian Ministry that provides care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across Ontario, and 2,500 employees.

The ruling which was decided by a single adjudicator – Michael Gottheil – ruled further that all managers and employees receive a pro-homosexuality “human rights training program”. Christian Horizons was also ordered to “develop and adopt an anti-discrimination and an anti-harassment policy” and “review of its employment policies, in consultation with the Commission” and report to the Commission on its progress, to ensure that such policies comply with the Code.

The ruling also stated, “No later than six months from the date of this decision, the respondent, Christian Horizons shall submit a report to the Tribunal outlining the steps it proposes to take to ensure that its employment policies are in compliance with the Code”.

Connie Heintz, an employee who signed onto the “morality statement” as a condition of employment, promised not to engage in “homosexual relationships”, among other anti-Christian activities such as “extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)”, “pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)”, “viewing or reading pornographic material” and “lying”.

When Heintz entered into a homosexual relationship and her employers came to know of it, she claims she was subject to a poisoned work environment and threatened with loss of her job. She quit her job in 2000.

Christian Horizons is the largest provider of community living services in the province, funded approximately $75 million annually by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Commenting on the decision, Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission opined, “This decision is important because it sets out that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of others, including employees, must be respected.”

An interesting commentary on this, from which I have excerpted, can be found here.

Canada’s human rights commissions have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for some time now in their head-over-heels eagerness to produce unfavorable verdicts against all things Christian and conservative. In all of the barrel scraping, however, they’ve generally stuck to their trusty tactic of applying the legal fig-leaf of “intolerance” – pointing out just how intolerably intolerant, prejudiced, hateful, discriminatory, close-minded and bigoted Christians and conservatives are, and why, therefore, they are a menace, must be punished and, ultimately, silenced.

The most recent decision to come out of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is unique, however, in that the tribunal ditches precedent and instead gushes about just how wonderfully non-discriminatory and loving Christian Horizons (the defendant in the case) is. And then, after pages of that, the tribunal goes ahead and slaps the Christian charity with a guilty verdict anyway.

…..

Throughout the 57-page decision Adjudicator Gottheil goes way out of his way to prove that CH does not and never has discriminated in any way, shape, or form when it comes to providing care for those in need. Christian Horizons, he argues, citing page after page of anecdotal and statistical evidence, seeks only to care for the “vulnerable, the marginalized and the needy” without any thought for their race, age, religious beliefs, or anything else, including, presumably, sexual orientation.

He writes, “Christian Horizons accepts all persons into its programs regardless of cultural background or religious belief.” And again: “In order to receive service from Christian Horizons, residents and their families are not required to be members of the organization or to adopt or sign the Doctrinal Statement or the Lifestyle Morality Statement.” And once again: “Christian Horizons’ witnesses were clear that it does not attempt to proselytize or engage in the religious indoctrination of residents.”

Time and again, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, we are assured by Gottheil that CH dispenses its services freely, liberally, to everyone and anyone who is in need, without exception. What is more, Gottheil cites the testimonies of both Christian and non-Christian families who have placed a family member in the care of Christian Horizons. “All,” writes Gottheil in a moving testimony to the success of CH in providing care without ideological consideration, “said that Christian Horizons provided excellent care for their children and siblings.”

…..

But then, in a twist of logic that leaves one dizzy and not a little flustered, Gottheil stands the whole thing on its head and goes on to prove that CH’s very tolerance is the reason why it must be punished and cannot be permitted to continue existing as a Christian organization. Because CH has been so successful as a Christian charity, it can no longer continue to be a Christian charity, he says. Because CH has not discriminated, it must be found guilty of discrimination. Because CH’s Christian employees have been so thoroughly Christian in the selflessness of their charity, CH must cease hiring only Christian employees.

All of this comes about because of Gottheil’s interpretation of section 24(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, “which permits certain organizations to restrict hiring or give preference in employment to persons identified by one of the proscribed grounds of discrimination.” According to Gottheil’s interpretation of the Code, section 24(1)(a) only permits those organizations that exist to offer services to the exact same class of people that they employ to be exempt from non-discrimination employment legislation. That is, if the charity hires only Christians, it can only offer its services to Christians.

Which just goes to show that neither the letter nor the spirit of a law is enough to prevent it being turned on its head and used for an ideological purpose, to wit chilling the public expression of Christianity in Canada. Some more from here.

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, summarized the situation by way of analogy in a article in the National Post today. He wrote: “Imagine that Mother Theresa and her Missionaries of Charity had been told that their ministry in the streets of Calcutta was, in essence, not ministry but ‘social work.’ In order for the sisters to continue in their work, they would no longer be permitted to require that staff members share their beliefs and ministry commitment.”

…..

Hutchinson’s comparison between Mother Teresa’s sisters in India and CH’s operations in Canada is particularly apt. In India Mother Teresa’s sisters were often persecuted by Hindu extremists because they wore their habits – wore, as it were, their Christianity ‘on their sleeves’.

Hutchinson told LifeSiteNews.com, “It is unreasonable for any tribunal to make a decision which assumes that faith and practice can be severed and in this case the capacity for practice in the type of ministry that Christian Horizons exhibits is dependent on a shared faith commitment amongst its staff.”

Perhaps the Ontario government might be concerned at the persecution of a charity that provides so much for society? Not so much if it means offending the great gods Discrimination and Tolerance.

Since CH is the largest provider of community living services in the province, providing care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across Ontario, (not to mention emplyoing 2,300 individuals) the ending of its ministry would present no small problem for the provincial government, which provides $75 million annually to CH for its services. That reality, however, seems not to have dawned on the provincial government.

Julia Sakas, Communications Assistant to Madeleine Meilleur, the provincial Minister of Community and Social Services, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about the matter. Although the government wants “to see that those clients continue to receive services and that those services will not be disrupted,” she said, “anything that would be determined as discriminatory would not be tolerated.”

“We expect our provincial organizations that are funded by the province to uphold the province’s shared values and those are that we don’t discriminate and we respect the law and we respect the same from our agencies,” said Sakas. One requirement, she explained, would be that employment contracts would not “infringe on the right to live one’s lifestyle as one chooses.”

Just so long as that lifestyle is the Correct one, of course.

All these pleasant sounding words are simply smooth covering over the precise opposite. There are none so intolerant as the ‘tolerant’, none so discriminatory as those espousing ‘non-discrimination’. And so it goes on.

It’s time to choose the God, or gods, you will serve, for remaining neutral will soon no longer be an option.