We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Where Is the Discernment?

In the Des Moines Register news this week (and all over the local TV news) was a story about Dowling High School, a Catholic school, deciding to NOT hire a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship and “engaged” to his partner.  There are some separate issues with this case which I’d like to address from both a general discernment view and an apologetic view.

First, from the discernment view, let’s look at how the media addresses the case:

Dowling High decision not to hire gay teacher protected by law.

Just to nit-pick; my first thought was, is the teacher protected by law or is the decision protected by law?  The latter, of course, is what is meant, but no one teaches proper grammar any more, so we get these types of silly headlines.  Notice also that they immediately imply there is something wrong with what the school is doing — by suggesting a legal protection is necessary because otherwise the school couldn’t do it.  They even clarify how they see a wrong when they write, “because Iowa's civil rights law allows religious institutions to discriminate based on sexual orientation.”

Notice how they framed the issue — that the school was discriminating against one’s sexual “orientation” rather than the truth that they were discriminating against sexual behavior.  This is the standard argument from those who want to force Christians to assist people in their sin — they claim it is because of “orientation” (i.e., desires) rather than behavior.  This is how the courts also treat the issue, and it is all one huge LIE!

The truth is that the teacher’s “sexual orientation” had nothing to do with the school’s decision; the school said it was because his same-sex relationship “was at odds with Church teaching.”

The letter from the local Bishop explained that their teaching contracts have a moral clause, and that moral clause will not permit the hiring of anyone not in compliance with Roman Catholic teaching on marriage. 

"Our contracts contain specific language that outline the expected code of conduct in accord with long accepted Church teaching," Luvern Gubbels, Des Moines Catholic Schools superintendent, wrote in the letter sent to parents of Dowling students. "The Catholic faith is central to our mission, and in order to deliver on that mission, it is our expectation that staff and teachers support our moral beliefs."

The man could be an adulterer, could be living unmarried with a woman, could be a bigamist, etc; all sexually immoral and not acceptable.  So, was the teacher’s “sexual orientation” the reason?  NO — it was not even mentioned.  The reason was because of sexual immorality  — CONDUCT!  Yet the media lied and said otherwise because they are promoting an agenda.

More from the media:  “Nationwide, clashes between civil rights and religious freedom are becoming more frequent and more fervent.”  Notice how they again wrongly frame the argument — “civil rights” vs “religious freedom,” as if the two are not the same!  (This argument is repeated again in the article.) The 1st Amendment to the Constitution says that the STATE cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion.  It does not permit any government to force religious people (whether Christians, Muslims, etc) to act against the exercise of their religion — and THAT is a “civil right”!

In Iowa, the state's civil rights act prohibits hiring discrimination based on reasons that include sexual orientation. However, the law makes an exception for religious institutions.

"Just in terms of employment discrimination laws, religious institutions can in fact discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," said Paul Gowder, associate law professor at the University of Iowa. "Whether that's a good idea or not is another question entirely.” . . . 

Gowder, the UI associate professor, predicted there will be "a serious ethical and legal debate as we move in time" over the rights of a religious institution to discriminate against someone because of his or her sexual orientation.

"I'm concerned about the notion that the message that we are sending allows a religious school to discriminate against gays and lesbians," he said.

Here we have an argument that “discrimination” is wrong, yet the media and Gowder are discriminating against the school in this case!!!  And again, notice they bring in the straw man of “sexual orientation” — an issue which is not a reason for the refusal to hire.

"Are we going see more of this? I think we are, undoubtedly," said Mark Kende, director of Drake University's Constitutional Law Center. . . .

Kende, of Drake, agreed that the issue will continue to simmer, particularly as more states allow same-sex marriage.

And, he said, there eventually could be movement by the courts. For instance, years ago, Virginia law prohibited blacks and whites from marrying.

"Over time, that changed," he said. "The Catholic Church changes quite slowly."

This is a favorite red herring of the homosexualists, as well as liberals in general.  Prohibiting people of different cultures and skin colors from marrying was based on nothing but racism (the ideology behind evolutionism) and was totally against everything taught in the Bible.   Skin color is morally neutral and does not affect whether a marriage is a marriage.  However, homosexual behavior is NOT morally neutral, and two of the same sex do not make a marriage.

Here’s the apologetic problem with this issue:  “A walkout in protest of the decision will be held at 1:20 p.m. Wednesday. Dowling Catholic students and alumni are planning to do a walkout and prayer at the northeast entrance of the school.

This is a Catholic school where Catholic doctrine (which in this case is the same doctrine for all real Christians) is expected to be upheld, yet alumni and students — whom I am assuming are Catholic — are protesting the school’s decision!!  

My first question is, where are the parents of these students; why are the parents allowing their children to protest Catholic teachings all the while using the Catholic school??  If they are not Catholics, then what right do they have to use the school and not support the Catholic doctrines?

My next question is, will the local Catholic leadership excommunicate these alumni and students until they repent of their actions?  I sincerely doubt it; the Catholic Church is very reticent to exercise church discipline, which is why they have within their ranks so many supporters of homosexuality and abortion.

This whole case demonstrates that the public at large is being lied to by the media and the leftists, and they lack the discernment to even notice it.  It also demonstrates what happens when the Church at large refuses to exercise church discipline, which results in sin running rampant in the Church, let alone among unbelievers.


BAS said...

Ironically, here the media argues that while its legal they think its wrong while on the abortion issue, they don't think it matters whether it is right or wrong, its legal so therefore ok (ala CBS' The Good Wife on April 5).

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And I just finished listening to that program Jeff directed us to.

I didn't know you had a blog! A long time inactive, I see. You'll have to let me know if you ever write something.