It’s two weeks ago now that we were in the Supreme Court of Canada presenting argument on the need for the assessment of potentially hateful behaviour to be about more than hurt feelings; and that criticisms of behaviour are not attacks against the person. You can find my comments from that day here.
During the course of the day, Cynthia Peterson – the lawyer for Egale Canada Inc. (formerly E.G.A.L.E., Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) – singled out The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in her comments to the court. Ms. Peterson noted that, in her opinion, one cannot separate identity (in this case sexual orientation – which term applies to heterosexuals as much as to homosexuals) from conduct (sexual behaviour). She objected to the biblically based concept that one can “hate the sin and love the sinner” and, claiming to speak on behalf of gays and lesbians, noted “we’re not feeling the love.”
While Ms. Peterson had other things to say, it is the comment about “not feeling the love” that I address briefly at this time – particularly because it was pointedly and publicly directed at the EFC.
The EFC appeared in the courts and before Parliament, prior to the change in Canada’s legal definition of marriage, in support of the traditional definition of marriage as between one woman and one man; a legitimate position based on biblical principles. Both before and after the change in the law, the EFC has advocated and appeared in the courts supporting the constitutional right of those authorized to perform marriages, and who object to performing same sex marriages because of their foundational religious beliefs, not be compelled by the state to do so. Our point of engagement on these issues has been from the belief that all people are deserving of respect, as all have been created in the image of God; that the New Testament describes a number of behaviours as sinful (including same sex sexual behaviour and heterosexual behaviour outside of one woman and one man within marriage) while clearly noting that ‘all have sinned’(i.e. same sex sexual behaviour is part of a fairly lengthy list); and, that the Bible also records a compulsion for Christians to share the Good News that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was for the sins of all, making a way for ‘whosoever’ freely chooses Him to receive forgiveness for their sin – in short, Jesus died hating the sin, and loving each sinner. Behaviour and identity are not the same thing.
Over the course of the many years, in fact two decades, that these matters have been proceeding in the courts and before government, representatives of the EFC, including myself, have had positive feedback from several legal counsel and other representatives of the different gay and lesbian individuals and organizations who have also appeared – some noting they themselves were gay and others not telling us either way – appreciating the fact that the EFC has advocated a principled position and has not engaged in an attack on the personhood of gays or lesbians.
In Ottawa, where I live, we have in recent days also experienced the media coverage (which I understand has been national in scope) and public grief in regard to the tragic suicide of a teenage boy named Jamie Hubley. Jamie has been described in the media as a teen who wrestled with depression, was bullied at school for being gay and struggled to find places of acceptance in his life. He bravely shared these struggles in an online blog.
This young man’s death is being touted as evidence that “teaching acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual students needs to be part of the curriculum in Canadian schools.” I suggest that, in fact, it’s not just acceptance of LGBT students that needs to be part of the curriculum in Canadian schools. Acceptance of all students should be part of the curriculum. This doesn’t mean all students must be forced to be friends or agree with one another on all points. And, it doesn’t mean that there can’t be debate or constructive disagreement. It does mean that bullying students on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religious beliefs, national or cultural origin or the several other prohibited grounds of discrimination under human rights laws should not be permitted, either by other students, teachers, administrators or those developing curriculum for the schools.
McLean’s magazine’s Emma Teitel has misunderstood and criticized the EFC as “working to oust sexual diversity from sex ed curricula across the country.”
In fact, the EFC has objected to curriculum that is not age appropriate. The EFC has also objected to curriculum that establishes a hierarchy of sensitivity in regard to grounds of ‘prohibited discrimination’ when the courts have consistently ruled that there should be no hierarchy of rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that the classroom should be a welcoming place for all students. Our presentation before the courts and to Ministries of Education, curriculum developers, school boards, teachers and parents across the country has been consistent – the foundation of our free and democratic society is in respect for all persons (whether or not you agree with us that this is established by biblical principle); and, Canadian and international law (and biblical principle) recognize that it is the right of parents to determine the education of their children. This is not a right to be overridden casually, as some curriculum has done.
We make no apology for our understanding and pursuit of biblical principles in life, public policy and the courts. We remain convinced that those principles make for a better Canada.
We do apologize if we have not adequately communicated the love of Jesus Christ for each and every person. We’re working on it. Even those who earnestly seek to follow Jesus fall short of always exemplifying His love and compassion. Thankfully, God loves us and remains loving as we continue to work through what it means to both believe in Him and behave like Jesus.
And our children – that is, the children of all Canadians who are subject to the curricula of the several Ministries of Education across the country – deserve the opportunity to learn ABCs, 123s and the traits of good character (whether or not reinforced in home, place of worship or other community pursuits); including acceptance and respect for others, even those with whom they disagree. The environment in which they learn these things should be free from bullying and harassment.