The only lasting cure for evil and injustice is Christian action

Of Christians, Bigotry, and Public Policy


by Rev. Mark H. Creech
Executive Director
Christian Action League of North Carolina

The Christian Action League’s opposition to the anti-bullying legislation (HB 1366- School Violence Prevention Act) raised a lot of raw emotions for some. During my lobbying against the measure (which would have made one’s sexual preference a specially protected class and created a historical legal precedence in North Carolina law), a Legislative Assistant, who is not Christian, confronted me in the area between the two chambers of the House and Senate and let her feelings be known. I could see she was very angry – lip trembling – face flush with red – yet trying desperately to keep her composure. “I do not believe that you are a good Christian,” she said to me. “Instead, I believe that you are a bigot hiding behind Christianity.” Her view was echoed repeatedly throughout the media and various internet blogs.

But it wasn’t just non-professing Christians who were critical. Some detractors were Christians that I deeply respect. Tony Carteledge, former editor of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention’s newspaper, The Biblical Recorder, accused conservative Christians who opposed the bill of using the name of Christ “as a big stick in the political process.” [1] Carteledge also oversimplified my position on the measure by contending my reference to homosexual behavior as a “‘sexual perversion’ that can be changed clearly implies a belief that gays and lesbians have intentionally chosen behavior that deviates from the accepted norm.” [2]

Someone once said that one of the surest marks of good character is a man’s ability to accept personal criticism without feeling malice toward the one who gives it. One can be certain there is no malice in me over the censures. But someone also said that it doesn’t take brains to criticize; any old vulture can find a carcass. At least when people are disparaging they should be certain their remarks are of substance.

There are essentially two problems contained within the criticisms that were leveled. The first is the assumption that “sexual orientation” is immutable and unchangeable. It is the belief that homosexuality and other alternate sexual behaviors are normal, natural, and acceptable – any other belief is bigotry. The other implies that anytime Christians vigorously oppose the codification of what they believe to be immoral in public policy, they are imposing their religious views on others.

There is much debate about “sexual orientation” today and where it starts. Is it nurture or nature? Is it purely innate or a choice? For devout Christians who believe the teachings of the Bible are to be the measure for all of life’s issues, the question is too general in its approach and essentially irrelevant.

The Bible is abundantly clear that homosexual behavior is “immoral.” A biblical view of homosexuality would also acknowledge that there might be psychological and even biological influences in the development of the behavior. But the Scriptures are adamant that it is not what influences a person that makes one “unclean,” it is the evil that lurks in a broken and depraved human nature. Sin has innumerable expressions in the human disposition that may have various influences. Some seem predisposed to a bad temper and certain influences may lend to the advancement of that conduct. Others seem predisposed to greed or jealousy. And certain influences or circumstances of life may make these behaviors deeply entrenched. But psychological or biological factors are really no more the cause of these behaviors than outside influences are essentially the cause of them. Therefore, the Bible doesn’t recognize sexually alternate practices as an orientation but as an outcome of one’s sinful nature. Homosexual behavior, as well as other wrong attitudes or actions, fundamentally comes from a universal spiritual orientation that inclines one to rebel against the person and purposes of God. This can only be reversed by the transforming grace of Jesus Christ.

If bigotry constitutes being intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion on homosexuality, then the accusation of bigotry is applicable to conservative evangelicals like me. But the same accusation could also be legitimately laid at the feet of the homosexual lobby for its growing insistence to end all discrimination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender behavior for all reasons and in all places.

For instance in May of this year, the Colorado legislature passed a bill designed to normalize all varieties of sexual orientation – cross dressers, men who self identify as women, women who self-identify as men, etc. by prohibiting any discrimination in 23 separate areas of public life – including restrooms and locker rooms. Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action noted the homosexual lobby made advocacy for the bill “the modern day equivalent of separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks.” [3]

Minnery also rightly contended that the bill didn’t just affect “public accommodations,” but also threatens religious liberty:

“A refusal to do business with someone based on a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong would violate the law. That threatens the religious liberties of every Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owner who operates a business on faith-based principles.

This is not a hypothetical threat. In Albuquerque, which has a similar law, a Christian husband and wife who own and operate their own photography studio were recently hauled before that state’s human rights commission and fined more than $6,600 for politely refusing, on religious grounds, to photograph a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” We’ve seen similar charges brought by homosexuals against a video reproduction business in Virginia, a medical clinic in California, an adoption service in Arizona and a church in New Jersey.” [4]

So where is the respect, the compassion, the love and the tolerance for other points of view by the gay and lesbian community? It must be that one is a bigot and discriminatory only if he or she refuses to accept the homosexual community’s position on the subject.

Make no mistake about it: compromise with gay activism in any form only invites the future erosion of the rights of those who believe in the necessity of virtue.

To be completely fair, no one is a bigot simply because he or she earnestly contends for a particular political position. Moreover, Christians are not using the name of Christ “as a big stick in the political process” when they vigorously oppose the advancement of the homosexual agenda. To the contrary, they are simply recognizing that all legislation is value-laden. Public policy is always the imposition of someone’s value-system on everyone. Failing to zealously advocate in a representative democracy that man’s law should be measured by the plumb of God’s would be a dereliction of a good Christian’s duty to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. [5]

Resources

[1] Baptist Today Blogs, Tony Carteledge, Bullies and Blackberries, July 18, 2008
[2] Baptist Today Blogs, Tony Carteledge, Bullies Need Guidance, July 15, 2008
[3] Guest Commentary by Tom Minnery, Denver Post, May 24, 2008
[4] Ibid
[5] The Holy Bible, Matthew 22:21

Disclaimer: Comments are welcome. Please note, all comments are moderated. Christian Action League reserves the right to remove or deny any comment for any reason. Approved comments do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Christian Action League or its supporters.

6 Responses to “Of Christians, Bigotry, and Public Policy”

  1. Greg Williamson Says:

    Thanks for your balanced perspective on this issue, and especially for your continued efforts with the legislature. (You may be interested in a sermon/article I wrote titled “God’s Cure for Homosexuality,” which can be found on my website at http://AC21DOJ.org/GodsCureForHomosexuality.html) Well-intentioned people do not see how they are being used as pawns by the radical homosexaul movement.

  2. Barbara Williams Says:

    Thank you so much for the stand that you take. I agree one hundred percent with what you have said. Thank you for being on the front lines and fighting for all of us. You are doing a great job.

  3. Philip Brooks Says:

    Dear Rev Creech,
    Thank you for your stedfastness on the Word Of God in this battle between good and evil. Indeed the Bible is clear about homosexuality being a choice humans make as a result of their sinful nature. We are not bigots just because we state facts based upon our Christian beliefs. I can love a homosexual through Christ, but it does not mean I condone or agree with their lifestyle. I am sure they would not like my lifestyle if it included embezelment of funds from their personal businesses. If we are wrong for espousing our beliefs then why are they not wrong for espousing theirs? Are they not just as much a bigot as we are? Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:1-3 that the last days would be characterized by perilousness which included people without natural affection. A lifestyle that is not capable of reproduction of another human is not natural since man was given a wife and told to multiply and replenish the earth.
    Again I want to thank you for your stand on the Bible. I would not worry about Tony Carteledge and his beliefs because they are far from Biblical. He and his wife believe that she can lead a church in worship, that is not truly worship. Instead they sit in a circle and talk or do something crafty or artsy. That is not Biblical worship as I understand it from my Bible.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Brooks

  4. Jim Howell Says:

    By opposing the anti-bullying legislation, are you saying that it is OK to bully other students (but only if the victim is homosexual)? It certainly appears that that is what you are saying, and that your Christian “love everybody” is being overridden by the Bible’s writings on homosexuality.

    I think that bullying other students, beating them up, or doing other acts of violence against them, is not acceptable under any circumstances. I don’t understand how you can find such actions acceptable if the victim is homosexual, if that is indeed your position.

    If, instead, you agree that bullying and violence against students is never acceptable, even if the victim is homosexual, and that the proposed legislation is simply the wrong way to approach the problem, then what do you suggest as an alternative? If your answer is “do nothing, who cares if gays get beaten up”, (and that is certainly the impression one gets from your article), then you have no room to complain about those who see you as an anti-gay bigot.

  5. admin Says:

    The Christian Action League has made it clear on a number of occasions that it is not in favor of bullying, more specifically bullying homosexuals. HB 1366 – School Violence Prevention Act, however, was not really about bullying but a vehicle for advancing homosexual ideology in North Carolina’s public schools.

    Rev. Creech noted in his editorial, The School Violence Prevention Act: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing the reasons for the League’s opposition:

    “Certainly no reasonable individual would want to be complicit with bullying for any reason. At least this is what the Senate thought and stripped away all of the enumerations from the House version of the bill and sent it back to that chamber for concurrence.

    Nevertheless, the House voted not to concur by a 60-56 margin and Rep. Glazier vowed to get the objectionable language of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” placed back in the legislation.

    The fact of the matter is no enumerations could cover all the bullying scenarios and none are needed to provide the essential protections for North Carolina’s children. At least this was the view of the North Carolina Board of Education in 2004. After considering an anti-bullying policy that initially listed 16 specific characteristics including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression,” the board unanimously voted to approve the policy without the specified list.

    Board of Education members steered clear of specific classifications in their policy for a number of reasons. Several were concerned that a list would cause school administrators to overlook bullying of other groups that were not on the list; and at least one member feared the classifications list would create a victim mentality in students who feel they fit the criteria.

    So why insist on enumerations in the legislation? It is because there really is a hidden agenda by pro-homosexual influences.”

    The Christian Action League’s position against the measure was no more bigoted than that of the North Carolina Board of Education which felt that any enumerations were necessary to effectively protect all of North Carolina’s children. Bullying is bullying under any circumstances and should not be tolerated for any reason.

  6. Jim Howell Says:

    Thank you for the clarification. But I think you should have put a little of that into the article itself. For example, if you favor the Senate version of the bill, without the enumerated list, you could have said so. Or you could have taken the last sentence from your comment above and found a place for it somewhere in the article, to make it clear that you are not opposed to protecting students from bullying, but are opposed to the particular proposed measure for other reasons.

    As I wrote in my previous comment, the article gives the impression that, since you oppose HB-1366, you don’t care if homosexuals are bullied, that such bullying doesn’t bother you. Your message above makes it clear that this is impression is incorrect.

Leave a Reply