After 2½ days in court for the appeal of Heintz v Christian Horizons, it seems that much of what is under the current legal microscope comes down to the simple question, “Why do they hate us?”
It seems presumptuous that there is an assumption by self-identified representatives of the gay and lesbian community that Christians hate gays. After some of the presentation in court over the last few days the question might easily arise in the Christian community concerning gays & lesbians attitude toward us. Why do they hate us?
One of the underlying issues expressed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Egale Canada Inc. (formerly E.G.A.L.E., Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) was an assertion that Christians discriminate against gays and lesbians because Christians don’t like them, period. The result of this false assumption is the assertion that Christian ministries should be required to change their beliefs on the issue of sexual activity outside of marriage between one woman and one man in order to create a place for sexually active homosexuals within the workforce of Christian ministry – a place, by the way, that is equally closed to sexually active heterosexuals outside that definition. In fact, as was pointed out during the presentations in the courtroom, there are Christian ministries which require adherence to a statement of faith and lifestyle policy for all and others with the requirement only for the helm or directing minds of the organization; and, those lifestyle policies require and forbid a range of behaviours of which sexual behaviour issues are but one component. The key here is that it’s not about orientation, it’s about belief (statement of faith) and behaviour (lifestyle practices).
The Bible is clear that we are to love our neighbours. Admittedly, there are some Christians who have difficulty that God’s ‘neighbour’ concept includes gays and lesbians. There is, however, no expressed biblical concept requiring acceptance of someone sexually active outside of marriage into the ranks of Christian ministers, whether leaders or service providers.
It was pointed out that there are some Christian organizations that do not make the distinction concerning faith and practice in regard to the front line service providing staff. That’s true, but doesn’t make it a requirement for all to accept that particular form of expression in their faith-based service.
There is a division on this issue of gays and lesbians in ministry within the Christian church generally. There are differing positions, each claiming a biblical basis, and there is debate on the appropriateness – orthodoxy – of each position. But this is an internal issue that is not the jurisdiction of either human rights bodies or the judiciary to determine.
I remember when the TD Bank and Canada Trust merged. There was much internal discussion along with media coverage about the distinct corporate cultures of the two organizations. No one dared offer the suggestion that they should behave like the CIBC or Royal Bank. The organization worked out its own culture. Religious communities do something similar.
In a free and democratic society, no one has the “right” to force someone else to accept their position but all have the fundamental freedom to express our position, provided it does not endanger another.
The Supreme Court of Canada was clear in Alberta v Hutterian Brethren that the concepts in Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem apply to religious communities. If the beliefs of a group are reasonably related to a religion and the practices arising have a reasonable connection to those beliefs then the courts, and by inference human rights tribunals, have no place to question further.
In the case of Christian Horizons, we have an organization that has organized around religious principles to form a community. The benefit of this religious community having formed is that the developmentally disabled are lovingly served as a result of the action arising from the community’s shared beliefs, practices and standards.
If a member of a religious community falls out of agreement with the beliefs or practices of that community, do they have the right to change the beliefs and practices of the rest of the community? In Canada the answer is not by force. Not by force of might. Not by force of legislation. And, not by force of judicial determination. To change the position of the rest of the community you can pray, reason, debate or use whatever means is acceptable within the community. Or you can leave, or be asked to leave, in order to live out your differing beliefs and practices outside of your former community of agreement. This is pretty standard fare with voluntary associations in a free and democratic country, religious or not.
Frequently, an unfortunate side effect of someone finding themselves distanced or excluded from their prior community of choice, whether by their decision or the community’s, is an emotional pain. People in emotional pain often blame the other. Interaction becomes expressed in a way that creates greater distance rather than reconciliation. They find people who share a similar disaffection and “Why do they hate me?” becomes “Why do they hate us?” The resulting actions and expressions toward the community left behind raises the question for the community, “Why do they hate us?” and in the end there is not resolution.
In a free and democratic society, we are called to dialogue; not forced, nor insulting but respectful. Unfortunately, tribunals and courts are often the only place where that dialogue takes place – forced and adversarial it often accentuates and increases wounds rather than bringing the healing desired.
For the record, Christian Horizons is in this situation for two reasons.
First, because a member of their community changed her position on the community’s accepted beliefs and practices.
Second, because Christian Horizons, like many Christian ministries, has not and does not discriminate in the provision of the services the community offers – belief and lifestyle policies do not apply to clientele – but they are selective about who may have membership in the community. Ironically, if they discriminated in the provision of their services, offering them only to Christians, there would not have been an issue for consideration by the tribunal.
Christian Horizons is one of about 1200 Evangelical ministry organizations in Ontario who provide their services to those in need on a non-discriminatory basis. The Ontario Human Rights Commission and Egale suggest they either serve only their own (fellow Christians) or cease to exist. Gays and lesbians once felt confined to private closets, now Christians are feeling pressured to retreat into the privacy of “stained glass” closets. All this, in our “free and democratic” society. Why do they hate us?