Ominous Signals From The Public Square

Monday, January 21, 2013 is the date of the swearing in of Barack Obama to his second term of office as President of the United States of America. Though downplayed by the popular media, the absence of a key participant in the inaugural ceremonies may be seen as an historical hinge point in the removal of “freedom of religion” as an “inalienable right” of American citizens. Rev. Louie Giglio, a recognized leader in the evangelical church and a leading advocate for human rights internationally, withdrew his name from the program in response to pressure from gay rights activists. Back in the mid-nineties Giglio had addressed the homosexual issue giving the following biblical statement:  "If you want to hear God's voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear. If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. . . ."  Because of such adherence to scriptural truth Giglio no longer was deemed to be an eligible participant in an event that is designed to endorse the moral and political position of the Obama Administration. The White House readily accepted his withdrawal, stating,  “Choosing an affirming and fair-minded voice as his replacement would be in keeping with the tone the president wants to set for his inaugural.”

Like the Constitution of the United States, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms equally guarantees freedom of religion for all Canadians.  This has traditionally been interpreted to mean the right to conduct our lives and run our institutions according to our belief systems. Yet the recently enacted Accepting Schools Act requires all Ontario school boards, public and Catholic, to sanction Gay-Straight Alliance student groups within their schools. It further forbids anyone within the school systems to make any statement or take action (even requesting exemption of children from certain classes dealing with sexual topics) which may "create a negative environment" for some students.

Here’s a statement from the Act defining how such a negative environment is created:  “The behaviour occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the pupil and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power, economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, family circumstances, gender, gender identity, gender expression, race, disability or the receipt of special education." A parent, or child, who would attempt to uphold the Bible’s statements about sexuality and family will now be responsible for helping create a “negative environment!”

It is clear to me that the societal screws are tightening when it comes to the upholding of Bible truth. Yet Christian education must fight for its very life—even among evangelical churches.  Unbelievable!!