|
| FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
For years the intelligentsia has looked down on evangelical believers as mentally challenged. They have charged them with being anti-intellectual obscurantists, people of pretty low intelligence whose views are a holdover from primitive, pre-scientific past. No doubt the description has fitted many ordinary people who knew little of the wisdom of the world but had enough instruction and intelligence to accept God's revelation and build their lives on it. But Bible-believing Christianity has never lacked its scholars, men and women of immense intellect who have made major contributions in almost every area of the arts and sciences. Despite this, the stereotype has persisted. The academic world has arbitrarily adopted as axiomatic the fallacy that anyone who believes the Bible to be the inspired and infallible word of God must be of limited intelligence or suffering from some form of derangement. Now a researcher from Boston University has set about proving the stereotype wrong. Evangelical scholarship has come a long way, according to sociologist Peter Berger, who is a liberal Lutheran. Berger has joined forces with Timothy Shah, a professedly evangelical political scienctist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its historical hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced. It all sounds so beneficial for the public image of evangelical Christianity but it is far from it. No matter how scholarly, nobody who takes the Bible for what it is and believes what it says need apply for recognition. A belief in evolution (guided by God, of course) is a given. So all those Creation Scientists-people of high academic achievement who use their immense scholarship to expound and defend the Bible-are not welcome under this tent. Another Boston sociologist, Alan Wolfe, is skeptical of the attempt to give evangelical scholars acceptance. According to him, evangelicals in the academy too often aren't open to truly engaging those who disagree. He points to things like "faith statements" at evangelical colleges, which require professors to proclaim Christian belief, and said that a prospering intellectual culture wouldn't make that requirement and shut other views out. That sound rather hypocritical coming from an academic when all across America Universities have made belief in Darwinism their faith statement! This statement, however, tells us what is really going on in the struggle of many evangelicals to gain acceptance in academia. To gain it they have started down a path that must destroy all genuinely Christian education. It seems that some "evangelical scholars" cannot abide the thought of not being recognized by the ungodly academy. "Please, oh please, call us scholars! We'll not knock Darwin or insist on taking the plain meaning of the Bible literally. Just accept us as scholars." That seems to be their position. We must repudiate all such compromise. God does not put a premium on ignorance, so we must continue to pursue deep, Biblical scholarship in every area. Let the world accept it or reject it, we must remain true to God's word. Scholarship divorced from Scripture can never be sanctified to the glory of God. It may produce "science falsely so called" but it has no place in evangelical Christianity. The reason is simple: God's word is truth and it enlightens the mind. All that contradicts it is a lie. That is the basis of all real scholarship-scholarship that God accepts. All other scholarship misuses the data God has revealed and exemplifies the statement of the Lord Jesus, "If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
About a month ago, a group of "evangelical" theologians and thinkers went to the National Press Club to launch An Evangelical Manifesto. They felt, quite rightly, that the title "evangelical" had been hijacked and misused so that in the minds of the great masses of people there is a great deal of justifiable confusion about what an evangelical is. There is obviously much in An Evangelical Manifesto with which all believers should agree. Its critique of some of the excesses of evangelical churches is devastatingly honest: "All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world." However, there is much to cause alarm. Two aims of the manifesto are to distance Evangelicalism from Fundamentalism and theological Liberalism. From what the framers have written, I judge that they have certainly made clear their departure from Biblical Fundamentalism while cozying up to Liberalism by accepting or allowing for some of its deepest heresies. Take a few examples. 1. As to whether the Lord Jesus Christ is the exclusive way for anyone to be saved, the manifesto is strangely ambivalent. It is known that at least one of the framers was not an exclusivist. By what stretch of the imagination a person who does not accept that "no man cometh to the Father" except by Jesus Christ can be called an evangelical is beyond me. 2. The manifesto's definition of the gospel is broad and simply states, "[A defining belief for Evangelicals is] is the belief that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life." That sounds good until you remember that a number of "evangelicals" are advocating a "non-violent" theory of the atonement-that is, that what Jesus did on the cross might have been a ransom to Satan or an example but not the substitutionary bearing of God's wrath against us for our sins. This manifesto statement is disturbingly imprecise. No man who denies the vicarious atonement of our Saviour can be recognized as an evangelical. 3. The manifesto says: "All too often we have ... fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science ... and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today." This is a clear repudiation of Young Earth Creationism. It sounds like a plea for Theistic Evolution and it automatically excludes the majority of professed evangelicals, for they believe in Creationism. Nobody can mistake the framers of this Evangelical Manifesto for Fundamentalists-these are "New Evangelicals," who don't want to fight the Darwinists or the Liberals but accommodate them. When I read what these men say I am reminded of Dr. Ian Paisley's quip: "Evangelicals, yes, but emphasis on the jelly!" |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Crystal Dixon was the associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo. That was until she wrote an opinion column for the April 18 issue of the Toledo Free Press expressing the belief that sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue. In that column, Dixon was careful to say that she was not representing the University or its opinions. She said she was writing "as a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and a business owner." Her point was that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic such as race or sex and therefore should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws. The University acted speedily against her. She was immediately placed on administrative leave and a few days later University President Lloyd Jacobs wrote his own column. He condemned his former employee's comments, asserting that Dixon's views "do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo." He also pledged that the university would be "taking action to align its policies" with its own value system. That alignment meant that Dixon was fired. Apparently the university removed her from her job in human resources and offered her another position, which she refused-and was immediately fired. Her lawyers are adamant that the firing was improper and possibly illegal and according to Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women of America, "an egregious violation." Barber went on to say, "I think the University of Toledo has really betrayed their anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance. Just because many Christians have a viewpoint that is unpopular in leftist circles, does not mean those leftists have a right to violate the law and discriminate against Christians." This case should concern all of us. Crystal Dixon was fired for exercising her right to speak as a private citizen. The University of Toledo has censored her in the most brutal manner they could-they fired her. Could you imagine them firing a homosexual or a Muslim for giving their private opinions on this or almost any other subject? Not at all, yet to discriminate against a professing Christian is perfectly acceptable with that school. We are reaching the place in America where the Constitutional rights of Christians are being sacrificed to the gods of secular humanism and political correctness. It doesn't matter how obviously true the sentiments expressed may be, if they contradict the spiel of the sodomite lobby they will be punished. Currently, there is a big push on to curtail the freedom of radio-and it will particularly impact Christian stations. If we are not vigilant we will soon be told that we are barred from stating publicly what we believe to be true. So let us use our freedom while we have it and make it clear: sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue. It is a matter of personal, moral preference or behavior. Last month, the secular media were agog with excitement because they could report that a "man" was expecting a baby. Of course this "man" was a woman who wanted to be known and accepted as a man. Somehow she forgot she was a man and conceived a child. I pity the child but to make that woman's desire to be accepted as a man a civil rights issue is just plain dishonest-no matter what the politically correct crowd at the University of Toledo or anywhere else say to the contrary. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Perhaps the major 20th century scientist was Albert Einstein. His theory of relativity has guaranteed his place in science's gallery of geniuses. But Einstein was also a fool-and I can say that on the authority of the word of God. Einstein's published views on religion were somewhat ambivalent. For example, he once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Such statements have been the subject of much debate, and have been used by some to back up arguments in favour of faith. However, in a letter dated January 3, 1954 that was auctioned in London last month he wrote to the philosopher Eric Gutkind and gave his views on God, the word of God, religion and the Jews as God's chosen people. Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition." As one of the world's most famous Jews, Einstein was asked to become Israel's second president. He refused but said that he identified with them. He wrote, "The Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people." He added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen' about them." He was scathing about the Bible: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." He utterly repudiated all religion, including Judaism: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." There can be no doubt that Albert Einstein by now knows the utter folly of his views-too late for his change of mind to do him any good. He was undoubtedly a man of immense ability but he was a fool who perverted the ability his Creator had given him to deny the Giver. That is not my opinion; it is the plain statement of God Himself. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1). I must say that I find no joy in reporting Einstein's religious views. It is ineffably sad to think of any man dying with such a denial of God in his heart. We are dealing with the eternal destruction of a human soul. The Bible is unequivocal: "He that believeth not shall be damned." Wishful thinking cannot alter the awful reality that one of the 20th century's most celebrated men-a man eulogized for his intellectual powers-lived his life as the ultimate fool. Einstein's words about the Bible are applicable to his own views: "No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this." Let us be clear on one thing. The reason for Einstein's atheism was not intellectual. It was rooted in his heart. As the Bible says, "He did not like to retain God in his knowledge." His trouble was heart trouble. He was a sinner and loved his darkness-and that was why he lived in the darkness of hopeless atheism. The father of relativity was wrong-absolutely. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
You thought that Charismatic TV evangelists had a corner on bogus schemes to filch people's hard earned money out of their pockets. You thought that they were the great exponents of bogus visions and strange apparitions. Those TV charlatans deserve to be exposed for how they have made merchandise of the gospel but in many ways they are mere beginners at the game. The real experts in reeling people in with false claims and bogus visions are the pope and his cohorts. For centuries they have beguiled unwary souls with empty claims of appearances by the Virgin Mary. They have made millions out of useless pilgrimages. They have plied a lucrative trade in useless relics. And if interest seems to be waning they can always come up with some new apparition or vision or miracle or whatever. Listen to this. Between 1664 and 1718 a girl who lived in the French Alps by the name of Benoite Rencurel claimed to have received visitations from the Virgin Mary-that is from she was 17 until she was 71 years old. She claimed that the Virgin appeared to her every day for four months in 1664, instructing her to build a church and a house to receive priests. All that took place back in the 17th century. So why raise it today? Here's why. A few weeks ago, Monsignor Jean-Michel di Falco Leandri spoke at a Mass that was broadcast nationally on France-2 television and announced that he recognized the "supernatural origin" of the apparitions to Benoite Rencurel. In an interview on France-Info radio, the bishop said the decision meant the church "has committed itself in an official way to say to pilgrims, ‘You can come here in total confidence.'" He reported that the recognition process involved a panel of "experts," including two theologians and an investigating judge. Today, the sanctuary that Rencurel founded welcomes about 120,000 pilgrims a year. Some of them go there in the hope of receiving healing oils based on a method that the Virgin Mary was said to pass on to the Alpine shepherd girl. By adding it to the official list of alleged genuine appearances by the Virgin Mary the Church of Rome has made sure to multiply those numbers-and the revenues the pilgrims will bring. I must confess that I know nothing about Benoite Rencurel. I have no idea if she was devout or deranged or both. What I do know is that the Bible does not traffic in occult appearances and that the claimed visitation by the Virgin Mary is a farce. Yet Rome has now officially recognized Rencurel's claimed visions as genuine-after almost 300 years, no less! "You can come here in total confidence," Rome is telling its deluded pilgrims. Come for what? Have confidence in what? Does she mean that pilgrims will receive an indulgence? Or some needed grace? Does she mean that Mary will somehow do them good? If so, she is as guilty as the worst Charismatic charlatans who disgrace so-called Christian television. Forget about running after Mary for some imagined spiritual benefit. The only Mediator between God and men-the only channel of divine blessing for needy souls-is the Lord Jesus Christ. And you'll not find Him at Benoite Rencurel's sanctuary. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, MAY 30, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The Institute for Creation Research has a history of well documented academic research and educational excellence. While it was situated in California, after going to Federal Court to turn back a denial from the Darwinist educational establishment, it earned the privilege of conferring Masters' degrees on students who studied under a faculty that boasted Ph.Ds from UCLA, Penn State, the University of Montana, Colorado State, Case Western and Indiana University. On its recent removal to Texas ICR Graduate School had to apply to the Texas Higher Education Consulting Board for a Certificate of Authority to grant degrees. The Board rejected the application despite the fact that a site team sent by the state agency to evaluate the educational offerings at the ICR Graduate School and the agency's advisory committee both recommended granting a Certificate of Authority. However Commissioner Raymund Paredes recommended against granting it and the Board went along with him. There was no question about the academic standards observed by ICR. There was no question about the credentials of the faculty. The sole ground on which the application was turned down was the fact that ICR approaches the question of origins from a Biblical viewpoint. It is not that it does not teach its students the theory of evolution. It does but it also points out the difficulties associated with that theory. According to ICR's spokesman, going into the hearing, ICR Graduate School had revamped its offerings "to meet, and in some areas to exceed, virtually all of the AAAS Project 2061 Benchmarks (in science, mathematics, technology, etc.) and the National Science Education Standards." In other words, there was no sound academic reason for the Texas Board to deny the ICR application. The only reason for the Board's decision was their blind faith in Darwinism. In effect the Higher Education Consulting Board decreed that the religion of higher education in Texas must be Darwinism. Christianity is not to be tolerated. Remember that all this took place while Ben Stein's Documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was exposing the weakness of Darwinism to millions of people across America. By all accounts, in that documentary the Darwinists took a hammering-they are supporting an insupportable theory. But Darwinists will not give up their monopoly in the field of science education easily. Hence the Texas decision. Darwin's little puppets fear that ICR may turn out too many well educated science teachers who can give the other side of the story. Evolutionists have been losing the debate in the public forum and therefore are all the more determined to cut off a vital source for the education of science teachers that lies outside their control. ICR will be back before the Texas Board. It's too early to say if they will once again have to go to court to obtain their right to confer advanced degrees. Hopefully the state of Texas will come to its senses and let Darwin's little men know that they cannot trample on the rights guaranteed to Christians by the US Constitution. Despite the efforts of Darwinists, Christians and Christian institutions have the right to free speech and free inquiry. It's time the Texas Higher Education Consulting Board stopped monkeying with those inalienable rights. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
After all the hoopla about man-caused global warming we are now learning that in reality the earth's surface is actually getting colder. Yes, colder! According to British scientists, Atlantic currents will have a cooling effect. This phenomenon is not limited to the Atlantic. Cooling Pacific currents have already been reported and the result is that experts expect a decrease in the temperature of the earth's surface until around the year 2015. Of course, some of the people who are reporting these facts are avid global warming fans and they are desperate that we do not draw the obvious conclusion that their favorite fantasy has been exposed for the foolishness it is. So they warn us that we need to keep with the program of crippling the US economy in search of a reduction in greenhouse gasses to save the planet. But their own data show that temperatures have varied constantly over time and continue to do so. The earth warms and the earth cools-and it has little or nothing to do with human activity. Remember that as recently as 1975 there was deep concern that the earth was cooling so much that scientists warned of a new ice age! Similar patterns of heating and cooling have been traced on other planets. For example, in recent times Jupiter has heated up and the last time anyone checked there were no little men in SUVs polluting the atmosphere there! There's even worse news for Al Gore and his global warming crowd. Consider the following Fox News report: "There is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree. That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded - up or down. Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity - which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases." Let that sink in: the natural cooling that has taken place over the last year alone has nothing to do with human efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. It is the result of reduced solar activity and even Al Gore, famously willing to lay dubious claim to many accomplishments, cannot really believe that he has had anything to do with that! Furthermore, one year's natural cooling is large enough to wipe out a century of global warming. Some time ago I reported that the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has floated the idea that since it is impossible to get a fair hearing or an informed debate in academic or political circles, we should launch a court case against Al Gore and company in the hope that a competent court could provide a platform for an enlightening probe of the evidence on all sides of the question. People have donated money to fund such a case and others are gung-ho for the idea. Coleman is said to be mulling over the possibility. If the case ever gets to court, they'd better have the heat turned up for by all accounts the temperature around them will be a little colder! |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a feature-length documentary film produced by Ben Stein, an economist, lawyer, university lecturer, speech writer for two Presidents and a well known movie and TV actor. It is a film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin's theory of evolution. It has become a box office success. Indeed it is one of the most successful documentaries ever produced. A major part of the film explores and traces the roots of Darwinism, and its relation to the genocidal policies of some of the major tyrants of the 20th century. It particularly explores the links between Darwinism and the policies of Adolf Hitler. According to Coral Ridge Ministries, one of the largest Christian media ministries in the nation, the link between Darwin and Hitler has been historically proven time and time again. In 2006, Coral Ridge Ministries produced its own documentary on the subject titled, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy." Jerry Newcombe, co-producer of the film, said "Expelled" brought up a fresh examination of the facts-namely that Darwinism, and later, through its racially charged forms of social Darwinism advocating the extermination of "inferior" races, provided Hitler with the springs to launch the most horrific genocide known to man. "The ideas of Charles Darwin helped fuel the Nazi killing machine, which took the lives of some 10-15 million people," Newcombe stated. According to Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler and a featured guest on the Coral Ridge Ministries' television special, "Among German historians, there's really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist. He clearly was drawing on Darwinian ideas. It drove pretty much everything that he did. It was not just a peripheral part of his ideology." Weikart added that Darwinism was extremely influential throughout German academia during the period and Hitler drew "on what many other scholars, biologists, and geneticists in Germany were preaching and teaching in the early twentieth century." Coral Ridge Ministries also cited the words of their late founder and host of "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," Dr. D. James Kennedy, to illustrate the enduring connection between Hitler and Darwinism. In 2006, Kennedy said, "We have had nearly 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution. And what has it brought us - whether Darwin intended it or not? Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed ‘inferior,' the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness. Darwin's legacy has been deadly indeed." And yet this is the theory that has gained control of major sections of our educational system. All around us we are seeing the devastation caused by the godless philosophy of Darwinism. Never for a moment forget that that is exactly what evolutionism is-a godless philosophy. It passes itself off as scientific but it is far more philosophy than science. Proof of that is the hysterical denunciations that rattle around the hallowed halls of academia when a scientist-no matter how eminent-dares to point out that there are evidences of design in nature that cannot be explained by Darwinism. But design means a Designer and that is a thought that evolutionary philosophers hate and will oppose, whatever the cost to society. Ben Stein has done a good job in exposing their agenda. We must keep up the pressure and call on our political leaders to break the "closed shop" that Darwinists have set up in our schools and colleges. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
According to the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Right Reverend Jack Iker, "faithful people" are leaving The Episcopal Church (TEC) "in droves." Iker's own diocese is in the process of leaving and is seeking to realign itself with the conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America. Already the Diocese of San Joaquin became the first full diocese to secede when it severed its ties with TEC in December, 2007. The prospect of the Diocese of Forth Worth finalizing its withdrawal later his year was too much for TEC's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. When Archbishop Gregory Venables, head of the province of Southern Cone, received an invitation from Iker to visit his diocese and speak in a number of churches, Jefferts Schori wrote him a scorching letter. She alleged that if he accepted the invitation he would bring further discord into TEC and told him that his visit would be "an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this province." Now remember why all this is happening. Control of TEC has fallen into the hands of theological radicals. Those radicals have decided that they are going to force their acceptance of homosexuality on the entire denomination, come what may. TEC is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the entire body is being wracked by this dispute. The best the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers can come up with is a proposal for a patched up compromise that allows "conservatives" to align themselves under bishops of their liking while doing nothing to rein in the madness of the pro-homosexual lobby. TEC could not wait for such a proposal to work its way through the system and went ahead with the "consecration" of the openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson. It would take more than the vain mumblings of an Episcopal Archbishop to "consecrate" or make holy what God's word declares to be an abomination that condemns those who practice it to destruction. But the TEC arrogantly places itself above the word of God. It has made a sodomite a bishop, no matter what the Bible may have to say against it. So it appears that TEC is willing to rip itself apart in the cause of allowing homosexual deviants into the ranks of its clergy. One must be glad that some churches and dioceses are willing to separate on this issue. And yet we must be careful here. These "conservatives" are not necessarily down the line Bible believers. They may be conservative on the homosexual issue but, for example, ecumenical or rationalistic in matters of Christian theology. Many "conservative" Anglicans are very admiring of Rome with all its false doctrine. Indeed, many of them share Rome's faith in the blasphemous Mass-claimed by its proponents to be an actual sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the living and the dead and described by the Anglican Church's Thirty Nine Articles of Religion to be a "blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit." I am glad that some men are willing to separate from apostate denominations on moral grounds. I would be a whole lot happier if they were willing to take the same stand because of fundamental departures by those denominations from the "faith once delivered to the saints." |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
When Connie Heintz signed on to work with Christian Horizons, a Canadian ministry geared to meeting the needs of the handicapped, she willingly signed the group's code of moral conduct as the basis of her service. It was a freely entered work contract. In signing that contract Heintz did what every other employee of Christian Horizons did: she undertook to abstain from immoral behavior, including pornography, pre-marital, extra-marital, and homo-sexual activity as a condition of employment. But Connie Heintz did not abide by her contract. She entered into a lesbian relationship and she resigned and sued her employers, alleging that she was "subjected to a poisoned work environment" and pressured into quitting her job. Christian Horizons actually tried to help her find another job, providing her with listings of vacancies in other charities. When her case came before Michael Gottheil, the single adjudicator appointed by Ontario's the Human Rights Tribunal, Heintz won her case. Gottheil ordered Christian Horizons to pay her $23,000 in fines plus two years wages and benefits. He also ordered the organization to abandon its Christian principles barring homosexual behavior and issued mandates that it begin requiring all employees to attend a "human rights training program" that is oriented toward homosexuality. The Human Rights Tribunal ignored the fact that the moral code adopted by Christian Horizons did not single out homosexuality but covered all forms of moral deviation from God's law. In other words, heterosexual misconduct would also be a violation of the terms of employment accepted by all employees of the charity. Apparently, it is allowable, at least for now, for a Christian organization to terminate a person's employment for heterosexual misconduct but not for homosexual. In other words, homosexuals have "rights" that go far beyond those of heterosexuals, rights that trump even contractual agreements. This matter concerns not only Canadians. Here in the U.S. the Gay and Lesbian Task Force and its fellow travelers are pushing for the adoption of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA would mandate employer tolerance of all forms of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promotion, and many Christian-oriented businesses (such as bookstores and radio stations) may not be protected by the bill's limited religious exemption. In fact, once the state goes this far it will not stop short of including churches. We will soon face the wrath of the state if our churches fire an employee because of homosexual activity. Our religious freedom and even freely entered contractual agreements will be overthrown just to protect the perversion of homosexuals who lie their way into our employment and demand to remain there, no matter how much it violates our principles. One factor in the Canadian decision that we will have to ponder deeply is that Christian Horizons as a charity benefits from government funding. It seems that the state is saying, "If you take our money you must adopt our morals." If that's the case, no matter how it may restrict the work of Christian charities, we would be better to tell the state to keep its money and we will keep our morals. Christian principles are not for sale. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
