Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Redmond, Washington, reportedly took a stand against the Washington governor’s recent efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage,” stating:  ”As long as the Bible says it’s wrong, I’m going to fight against it like it’s the last thing I can do. It’s no different than any other sin. If someone walked around and said ‘We want to be a minority because we are divorcees,’ I would fight that just as much.” He believes that if the proponents of the new law succeed, it will profoundly restrict religious freedom, and he’s right.

Proponents of same-sex “marriage” have the ultimate goal of sexual choices being treated the same as race. In other words, they think criticizing someone for engaging in homosexual behavior should be viewed the same as criticizing someone for being Black. The religious freedom implications for this change in the law would be striking. For instance, Title VII protects religious organizations by allowing them to discriminate based on religion when it comes to hiring staff. This exemption makes sense because no one would argue a Catholic school should hire an Atheist to teach religion. But that religious exemption doesn’t apply to discrimination based on race. If the proponents of same-sex marriage are successful in elevating sexual orientation discrimination to the same level as race discrimination, religious organizations that teach biblical truth about sexuality may be forced to hire individuals who engage in homosexual behavior  for some leadership positions like teachers. (You can read more about how the homosexual legal agenda could affect religious freedom here and here.)

Pastor Hutcherson is to be commended for being willing to take a stand that may be politically incorrect, and the foresight to understand the homosexual agenda’s negative implications for religious freedom. We need more religious leaders like him.

Attempts to censor religious speech are often disguised as restrictions on “hate speech” or “bullying.” This is happening right now in New York.  Professor Volokh reports that four New York state senators will soon propose an anti-bullying bill that will undermine freedom of speech. The bill would make it a crime to intentionally make any digital communication (e-mail, text, etc.) about someone under the age of 21 that causes “material harm to the mental or emotional health” of that person.

The proponents of the bill argue that it will withstand constitutional scrutiny under a “refined” view of the First Amendment where ”this freedom [of speech] should be treated not as a right but as a privilege.” Of course, the hidden agenda here is the “privilege” of speaking is conditioned on limiting one’s speech to that which is politically correct, and not likely to evoke any sort of negative emotional reaction from young folks.  This is just a new wrapper on age-old attempts to censor speech because it may be considered offensive. Note that all it takes to be held guilty under this proposed law is for someone in New York to send an e-mail that upsets a young person (even if they are over 18). This is exactly the kind of speech that needs protecting. Speech that everyone agrees with and evokes no emotional reaction is in no danger of being censored.

Christians should be especially concerned about this perversion of the First Amendment because our Lord promised us that “you will be hated because of me.” The Gospel (Truth) is often offensive and evokes strong emotional reaction.  In fact, the disciples reported that the Pharisees were “offended” by the teachings of Christ in Matthew 15:12.  And certainly (at least in New York) Jesus would have been accused of bullying when he referred to the Pharisees as a ”brood of vipers” in Matthew 12:34. Professor Volokh gives a good example of how this ”refined” view of speech could adversely affect religious speakers. He predicts that this soon to be proposed New York ”anti-bullying” law could be used to punish a pastor who informs family members of a young man that he is engaged in homosexual behavior, which the Bible says is sinful (but certainly not unforgivable. See I Cor. 6:9-11).

Don’t be fooled by religious censors masquerading as anti-bullying crusaders.

Anyone opposed to the acceptance of homosexual behavior as a healthy, normal, moral equivalent to heterosexuality is often accused of homophobia – an irrational fear of those engaged in homosexual behavior.  This same label is applied to any church that teaches biblical morality on the issue.  Recently, Bill Hybels, Pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago, had to defend his church’s  loving and biblical morality teachings against an attack from a homosexual activist who persuaded the head of Starbucks to breach his contract to speak at the church’s leadership summit.  Some churches, like Mt. Hope Church in East Lansing, Michigan, are sometimes even physically attacked by radical groups who support the homosexual agenda like BashBack! (an indication of irrational fear on their part).

But most pastors and churches I’m familiar with are like Willow Creek and love those caught up in homosexual behavior, wanting them to experience the freedom that Christ can give.  They don’t fear them, but they fear for them.  As Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently put it in his piece on the topic, “Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.”  Well said. If  churches truly love those who are engaged in sin that separates them from a right relationship with God, they cannot say sin is OK.  That truly would be hateful, not loving.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

This bill is currently pending before Congress and could have a detrimental effect on the ability of churches to only hire individuals  that agree with their religious beliefs and live their lives accordingly.  If passed, ENDA would add “sexual orientation” to the list of characteristics upon which an employer cannot discriminate.  This is unlikely to have much direct effect on churches because Title VII allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion.  See Page 12 of our resource, Business With Conviction: Employer Religious Beliefs. But it could affect them indirectly if they have separate ministries such as schools or day care facilities that are not expressly religious and all employees are not required to subscribe to church doctrine.  A good summary of the potential implications of ENDA for churches written by Richard Hammar can be accessed here.  Well-crafted bylaws and employee handbooks will go a long way toward helping a church defend its ministries against this law, should it pass. Suggestions of what these documents should include can be found in our legal resource, “Job Descriptions & Religious Grounds for Limiting Employment” at speakupmovement.org/church.

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

The 1960s blockbuster movie Seven Days in May  recounted a fictional plot by military leaders to overthrow a president who pushed for nuclear disarmament. It is a classic anti-military screed that embodied some of the worst far-left thinking of the sixties.

The movie was pure fiction.  But the leftist thinking behind the movie was unfortunately real.  And as we verge on another May, that bad thinking is incarnated in a real president who is bent on overthrowing the moral standards of our military—standards that have seen this Nation safely through centuries of peace and war.

In May 2011 President Obama will keep after his goal of forcing bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military by repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy—not just so a few individuals may serve, but to enforce the homosexual agenda by force of law and military regulation.  When he rolled the idea out in his inaugural address, it seemed like a done deal. But in the wake of the 2010 elections in which he lost control of the House of Representatives, it is no longer a sure bet.

Recently, House committees have been asking hard questions of some generals and admirals on April 1st and 7th—and much to their shame, those active duty commanders tap danced around the hard truths that were set forth months ago by almost 1200 senior veteran officers—retired flag and general officers who can speak without career fears hanging over them. 

But the commanders’ evasion did not go unnoticed, and now some of the best minds in America are rebelling against this radical “repeal” of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Renowned author and Christian leader Chuck Colson—who once commanded a platoon of Marines—pungently points out that forcing errant eros into the band-of-brothers military culture will have devastating impacts.  Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, calls out Congressional and military leaders for indulging in shoddy politics that elevate a wrongheaded “sexual liberty” over real military needs.  And of course, ADF has spoken forcefully on the religious freedom aspects of the issue.

This resistance is good news, and it is growing. One hearing already led to a second, and those inspired these incisive commentaries. And if you act swiftly by letting your Senators and Representatives know today that the repeal is wrong and must be stopped, then this May may bring real hope to our stressed and deeply endangered troops.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch